Wednesday, July 28, 2010

The Green Revolution's field of dreams: India has grown a magnificent Cancer Market

by Mark Tillson.

There is great news out of India.

Indian oncology market to grow at 21% CAGR: F&S

The drug companies and medical establishment see great potential in "the market in cancer."

There are also new markets now in neurologic diseases, deformities, respiratory diseases, depression, etc.

This is what economists call "supplier-induced demand."

First the US opens India to multinational agribusiness which proceeds to poison India with pesticides, and then the drug companies move in to "help." But the companies are the same companies, first selling pesticide then eager to make money on cancer.

The inexorable business logic is clear.

The main principles governing the pharmaceutical "business with disease." It is not in the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry to prevent common diseases – the maintenance and expansion of diseases is a precondition for the financial growth of this industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is an investment industry driven by the profits of its shareholders. Improving human health is not the driving force of this industry.

The pharmaceutical investment industry was artificially created and strategically developed over an entire century by the same investment groups that control the global petrochemical and chemical industries.

The huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry are based on the patenting of new drugs. These patents essentially allow drug manufacturers to arbitrarily define the profits for their products.

The marketplace for the pharmaceutical industry is the human body – but only for as long as the body hosts diseases. Thus, maintaining and expanding diseases is a precondition for the growth of the pharmaceutical industry. ....

The survival of the pharmaceutical industry is dependent on the elimination by any means of effective natural health therapies. These natural and non-patentable therapies have become the treatment of choice for millions of people despite the combined economic, political and media opposition of the world's largest investment industry.

And already, in Indian media, there are starting to be attacks on aryuvedic medicine and the natural (and harmless and cheap) treatments that India has given to the world, all the drugs companies are trying to patent (own) the very substances they promote as worthless natural treatments.

And suddenly there are plans now for quickly trained doctors to go to villages (no one cared about the villages before), to diagnose and prescribe treatments.

Foreign companies planted fields of disease under the name, "the Green Revolution."

Now the same companies are returning to harvest the crop, under the name "modern medicine for poor backward India." The crop will yield immense profits. To help, the government of India is opening the door to a Second Green Revolution. More pesticides and now even GMOs would be planted, so ever larger crops of deformity, developmental disability, neurologic diseases, skin diseases, heart diseases, sterility, endlessly diverse cancers, and human agony can grow and flourish.

Indian oncology market to grow at 21% CAGR: F&S

Bangalore, July 27, 2010: The Indian oncology market is witnessing strong growth alongside fast-paced development in the pharmaceutical sector. The market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 21 percent from 2008 to 2014, driven by the introduction of new treatments, increasing number of patients on chemotherapy, and improved access to modern cancer therapies, according to a new report from Frost & Sullivan (F&S).

Cancer is one of the 10 leading causes of death in India. Nearly half the cases are curable if detected early. Due to the high prevalence of cancer, the oncology market is witnessing fast-paced growth. High spending on therapeutic drugs for cancer in the emerging economies including India is fuelling market growth.

"With the expanding base of patients undergoing chemotherapy in the major markets and greater access to modern therapies, cancer drugs are poised for widespread uptake," noted an F&S analyst, adding: "Moreover, the increase in the aging population is another factor contributing positive momentum for the market." A 40 to 50 percent increase in incidences can be seen for some of the major cancer indications such a prostate, breast, ovarian, and head and neck cancers. Also the high prevalence of smoking is loading to the proliferation in the number of patients afflicted with lung cancer.

Trends indicate that the incidence of cancer is set to assume dangerous proportions in the future, making the disease one of the major chronic diseases that will continue to impact people's lives. Going forward, greater progress in cancer therapy is envisioned along with more light being thrown on the cause of the disease. Yet, it remains to be seen how much the refinement in the present detection diagnostic, and therapeutic technologies will help in containing the spread of the disease. Large quantities of generic drugs are available in the market for cancer treatment. Chemotherapy is highly genericized, said the F&S report, pointing out that these products are low-priced and hence place restrictions on potential revenues.

In this market with increasing competition and generic players, it is important to strategically position products as early in their life cycle as possible to generate the most revenue prior to patent expiration. For the competitive chemotherapy market, showing superior efficacy and less toxicity in combination with targeted therapy drugs is one of the best ways to distinguish the product over others.

"To be successful in the cancer market of the future, it is imperative for product to be established as an integral part of the standard combination therapy regimen. This will guarantee strong revenue and the most value to patients," said the analyst.

Identifying optimal drug combinations, which significantly increase median survival, tumor resolution and reduce toxicity and adverse effects should be the prime task for companies in the cancer therapeutic market, the report mentioned

Potlucks bite the dust: "Food safety" shows its true colors

by Steve Green

P.J. Huffstutter is one of the few journalists in the country paying close attention to the rising tide of "food safety" laws. In her latest article, "Raw food raid raises questions over existing milk laws -- and the safety of potlucks," she appreciates how serious - and odd - things are becoming.

People respond to the words "food safety" as the government's sincere concern for health, not noticing the FDA "food safety" division has recently asserted in court that the public has no fundamental right to their bodily and physical health.

What is going on?

Perhaps it might help for people to know that the FDA's "food safety division is being run by Monsanto, an almost universally reviled corporation for its assaults on farmers, its lies and lies, its corruption (inspiring an international movie) and it's being at bottom of the barrel of corporations in terms of ethics. Yet the Monsanto connection to "food safety" is being missed, though the same Monsanto person designed it, is running the FDA division now, and is expected to run the giant centralized agency the dangerous bill S 510 (now in the Senate) would create, with unlimited penalties and no judicial review even over the appropriateness and validity of his actions. That gem is in Rosa DeLauro's food safety bill, one that could be transferred to S 510 at any moment.

DeLauro is pushing now for S 510. Her husband works for Monsanto, a company his website calls progressive.

Central to the FDA's "food safety" campaign is raw milk with government declaring that it is an extreme threat to human health and using that resumption to create government control (with weapons drawn) over locally produced food, and, as we see with potlucks, over home made food as well.

While it is only corporate food which is killing anyone, the corporations are doing what they can to create a parallel universe of danger from local food, their direct competition. Danger from raw milk is their prime example, being promoted by corporate media, and piggybacking on the fear people have over deaths from the meat industry.

So, the relevant question becomes: How dangerous is raw milk?

From an article on the FDA, by Philip Rudnick, Professor Emeritus, Chemistry, West Chester University of Pennsylvania

A Medline search [search terms: raw milk death/raw milk fatality/raw milk fatal/raw milk fatalities] produced a single citation of a single case of death in 1983 of a 72-year-old woman during "an outbreak of illness caused by raw milk" (Tacket CO, Dominguez LB, Fisher HJ, Cohen ML. JAMA. 1985 Apr 12;253(14):2058-60.) Since Medline citations go back to 1949,

this means that, absent information to the contrary, there has been one Medline-documented fatality over a period of 57 years from the consumption of raw milk produced in the United States.

How do FDA-approved drugs compare? Even if one considered only the last 21 years of this 57-year period (starting with the GAO Report year of 1985), using the conservative figure of 100,000 deaths per year from the use of properly-prescribed-and-used FDA-approved drugs, then the death-toll from the use of FDA-approved drugs over this considerably shorter period of time has been at least 2,100,000 victims.

When one looks at the relative safety of raw milk compared to corporate pasteurized milk, the standards are actually higher for raw milk. This is true for the nutritional value as well.

Raw Certified Milk

Pasteurized Milk

A. Cleanliness Regulations

  1. Tested daily at an independent laboratory for the Certified Milk Commission.
    1. Bacteria count for standard plate count: 10,000 per ml maximum for Certified Milk or Cream.
  2. Streptococci test once a month.

A. Cleanliness, CA State & County Law

  1. Tested once a month by the Health Department
    1. Bacteria count for the standard plate count: 50,000 per ml maximum before pasteurization; 15,000 per ml maximum after pasteurization for milk, 25,000 per ml maximum for cream.
    2. May not exceed 750 Coliform per ml in raw milk before pasteurization, taken at farm pick-up.
  2. No regulation requires test for Streptococci.

B. Herd tests in Los Angeles County, CA

  1. All dairy cows in a certified milking are vaccinated for brucellosis between the ages of 2-6months.

  2. Each certified cow is blood tested for brucellosis before entering the milking herd and receives a blood test at least once a year; thereafter reactors are removed.
  3. All raw certified milk is ring tested at least 4 times a year for brucella. If the ring test is positive, then entire herd is blood tested for brucellosis and any positive reactors are removed.
  4. TB skin test is performed annually on all cows in the certified milking herd by a state veterinarian. If reactors were found they would be removed from the certified herd. All certified milk dairy herds are free and are maintained free of TB because of constant vigilance and testing.
  5. Herd sanitarian from the County Medical Milk Commission visits the dairy weekly or more often. A health inspector from the county visits the dairy at least monthly.

B. Herd tests in Los Angeles County, CA

  1. All dairy cows are vaccinated for brucellosis between the ages of 2-6 months. All dairy cattle moving within the state must bear evidence of official calfhood vaccination.
  2. All dairy cattle must be blood tested for brucellosis if imported into California and reactors are removed.

  3. The milk from all dairy herds is ring tested at least 4 times a year for brucella. If the ring test is positive then the entire dairy herd is blood tested for brucellosis and any positive reactors are removed.
  4. TB Skin Test is performed on all cows by a state veterinarian at intervals longer than one year. If reactors are found, additional tests may be required. Reactor cows are removed.

  5. Health inspector visits dairy monthly.

C. Employee Health Examinations

  1. Once a month examination of each employee at certified farm. All new employees have a complete physical examination and tests when starting to work on a certified farm.
  2. Once a month throat culture and examination for streptococcus.
  3. During the year other tests are made at regular intervals. Another step to insure disease-free milk.
  4. Stool specimen is required from each employee bi-annually.
  5. Chest x-ray or skin test for TB required annually.

C. Employee Health Examinations

  1. Examination required at time of employment.

  2. None required.

  3. None required.

  4. None required.

  5. None required.

D. Nutritional Values

  1. Enzymes, catalase, peroxidase and phosphatase are present.
    1. Phosphates is needed to split and assimilate the mineral salts in foods that are in the form of phytates.
    2. Wulzen Factor (anti-stiffness) available.
    3. X Factor (now believed to be vitamin K2) in tissue repair available.
  2. Protein--100% metabolically available; all 22 amino acids, including the 8 that are essential for the complete metabolism and function of protein.

  3. Vitamins--all 100% available
    1. Vitamin A--fat soluble
    2. Vitamin D--fat soluble
    3. Vitamin E--fat soluble
    4. Vitamin K--fat soluble
    5. Vitamin B--Complex:
      Vitamin Bw--Biotin
      Vitamin B --Choline
      Vitamin Bc --Folic Acid
      Vitamin B1 --Thiamine
      Vitamin B2 --Inositol
      Vitamin B2 --Nicotinic Acid
      Vitamin B2 --Riboflavin
      Vitamin B2 --Pantothenic Acid
      Vitamin B3 --Niacin
      Vitamin B6 --Pyridoxine
      Vitamin B12--Cyanocobalamin
    6. Vitamin C
    7. Antineuritic vitamin

  4. Minerals--all 100% metabolically available.

  5. Carbohydrates--easily utilized in metabolism. Still associated naturally with elements (instable).
  6. Fats--all 18 fatty acids metabolically available, both saturated and unsaturated.

D. Nutritional Values

  1. Pasteurization destroys the enzyme phosphatase.
    1. Absence of phosphatase indicate that milk has been pasteurized.
    2. Wulzen Factor destroyed (anti-stiffness nutrition factor lost).
    3. X Factor--No evidence of alteration by pasteurization.
  2. Protein--Digestibility reduced by 4%, biological value reduced by 17%. From the digestibility and metabolic data it is concluded that the heat damage to lysine and possibly to histidine and perhaps other amino acids destroys the identity of these amino acids and partly decreases the absorbability of their nitrogen.
  3. Vitamins
    1. Vitamin A--destroyed
    2. Vitamin D--Not altered
    3. Vitamin E--Not altered
    4. Vitamin K--Not altered
    5. Vitamin B complex--pasteurization of milk destroys about 38% of the vitamin B complex.

    6. Vitamin C is weakened or destroyed by pasteurization. Infants fed pasteurized milk exclusively will develop scurvy.
    7. Antineuritic vitamin: Testing of pasteurized milk indicates destruction of this vitamin.
  4. Minerals-- After pasteurization the total of soluble calcium is very much diminished. The loss of soluble calcium in regards to infants and growing children must be a very important factor in growth and development, not only in the formation of bone and teeth, but also in the calcium content of the blood, the importance of which is now being raised.
  5. Carbohydrates —no evidence of change by pasteurization.
  6. Fats--Pasteurization harms the fat content of milk.

E. Possible Damage to the Health of Consumers from Drinking Pasteurized Milk

  1. Dr. J. C. Annand has written a series of articles in which he has advanced the theory that the increase in the incidence of heart disease was proximately related to the on set of pasteurization of milk. Different population groups were studied in various parts of the world. His theory is that the heat process of pasteurization alters the protein found in milk and as a result heated protein is responsible for the large increase in the incidence of heart trouble in citizens of western civilization, during the course of the past generation.

  2. Dr. Kurt A. Oster has advanced the theory that homogenization of milk is proximately related to the atherosclerosis which is so prevalent in citizens in developed countries of the western world. The reduction in the size of the fat particles caused by homogenization permits them to be assimilated into the stomach lining in a manner that was not contemplated by nature. When these fat particles along with xanthine oxidase get into the bloodstream the human system sets up a defense mechanism which results in the scarring of arteries.

How is it that the FDA, which misses both the utter harmlessness of raw milk and its special nutritional value, and which itself is associated with the millions of deaths, has been put in charge of "food safety" for local food?

Food supplements are also being targeted for FDA raids.

Rudnick is amused that food itself, by FDA's peculiar reasoning, can be declared a drug.

"It's a bird, it's a plane…

"If recommended "for the prevention and treatment of scurvy", it's adjudged a legal (and therefore safe) FDA-approved drug.

"If recommended "for some possible health benefit in cancer", it's adjudged an unapproved, illegal, and possibly hazardous drug. As a supplement distributor, you would be threatened with closure of your business or would be raided.

"If not recommended for anything, it's adjudged a legal dietary supplement.

"It apparently is FDA's view that if a company makes a claim that milk helps prevent rickets, milk suddenly becomes a drug."

-Federal Judge Lowell Jensen, District Court, San Francisco,

in the _Nutricology_ case, September 23, 1993

The Hazardous-Nutritional-Supplements-Target of FDA Police Raids:

Annual Deaths From:

FDA-Approved Drugs (1).......60,000 - 140,000

Food Contamination (2)...........................9,100

Aspirin (3)......................................................90

All vitamins (4)............................................. 0

Uncontaminated amino acids (4)..................0

Commercial herbs (4).................................... 0

Thus, with food supplements as well, the utter harmlessness of food (nutritional) supplements are met by FDA attacks versus vast numbers of deaths by the drug industry being met by the FDA giving them a pass.

[Didn't the FDA threaten health stores and websites that they may not even use the words "flu" or "cold season" during the swine flu (when the government was saying 90,000 might die) to point customers toward food (nutritional) supplements that would boost their immune system to avoid getting the flu? On the other hand, didn't the FDA just write a new rule for the drug companies, allowing them to change ingredients in vaccines with only the approval of a single FDA employee ?]

And now, at just the same time that nutritional local food is being attacked by the FDA, there have been four bills this year alone aimed at removing the public's access to all food (nutritional) supplements, while the FDA would not even take a single drug off the market though it has already killed 80,000. FDA left that CEO free to continue killing but used Interpol to kidnap and imprison an herbalist against who there were no complaints and who had harmed no one.

One would almost think the FDA is attempting to remove access to nutrition itself. To health. (But wouldn't removal of good food and food supplements lead to ill health? Who would profit by that?)

Is the FDA just confused about what is dangerous and what needs stopping - 80,000 deaths or none? Could it be something other than confusion? And in either case, confusion or something else, why is the FDA in charge of food safety at all, especially when they have declared in the court that the public has no rights over food or even their health? Haven't they essentially admitted what seems true from the statistics and their actions already, that they don't care about the public's health, and nutrition be damned?

And yet the FDA - run now by an executive of what has been called the most evil corporation on the planet - proposes to take control of all food in the US, using what are curiously (perhaps humorously to them?) called "food safety" laws.

Perhaps the following might give a fuller picture of the impact of such food safety laws, as applied (already inappropriately and brutally) to local farmers and food producers.

1. Against a background of no fatalities or illnesses or complaints,
2. at a time when the country greatly desires to expand fresh local food production everywhere across the country, and
3. at a time when millions people are out of work and making and selling food has traditionally provided a means of income and a way to start home-owned businesses,

Corporate "food safety" laws are attacking every kind of local and interpersonal food activity,

though those activities allow families to pass skills, history and traditions to their children,
those activities
encourage sharing and connection,
those activities
are the very foundation of diverse cultures and religious groups,
those activities
are the heart of all communities,
though those activities offer the means to restore our local and nationals economies,
those activities
are the most basic of all labor,
those activities provide
local and personal control over food - a life and death issue.

Below is a very small sample of corporate-introduced "food safety" laws raining down now across the country, destroying Americans' most basic human rights to come together and enjoy food and each other as they always have, destroying the very fabric of our local communities and their distinctiveness, and blocking sharing itself, the most fundamental of moral actions and human impulses.

preventing people from bringing home made goods to churches for bazaars.

preventing vendors at markets from selling home made goods (including distinctive (and ethnic) foods unavailable in any other way).

preventing people who went through certification classes and paid fees to sell home made goods at farmers markets from donating those same goods to food banks.

preventing people from donating food to the homeless.

preventing children from bringing home made goods for school fund raisers.

preventing farmers from bringing fresh eggs to markets unless in a refrigerated truck though eggs have never needed this before and do not need refrigeration at all,

preventing farmers from selling products they have been making for their own families and selling to neighbors for generations.

The "food safety" laws are broadly and vaguely written, giving virtually endless power to the state. And in that broadness, they are malleable and can be raised at any time to put any farmer or food business out of business (the grease trap is not big enough, the stove needs to be replaced, the kitchen needs to be converted to stainless steel, the farmer needs a separate facility for capping his milk bottles, the farmers needs million dollar equipment to clean seeds, etc.). The laws might even be used to declare a home unfit to provide food to a family because those in it haven't paid for and passed certification classes and the home hasn't passed inspection or the owners have not produced the endless HACCP paperwork the laws set up.

It is easy to see why Vandana Shiva has called "food safety," the Law of Food Fascism.

It is almost as though a new form of discrimination is slowly coming down on all Americans from their own government, a new civil rights struggle that has yet to be defined as such, and what people are being cut off from is not schooling or housing or public accommodations but the very basics of existence, food and health. Survival. Life itself.

What is certainly clear is that there is no limit - any food could be taken away any person could be punished - and those running this have no stopping those killing people but a long and ugly history of crushing those providing health. Is there any logic to all this?

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Food Czars suddenly appear in Boston and other cities

by Liberal in Shock

Mr. Wilson's article in the "American Thinker," below, is important in that he highlights the sudden intrusion of government into everyone's food.

Peter Wilson - American Thinker - July 20, 2010

"There's no department of food, federally or statewide,'' laments Holly Freishtat, Baltimore's food czar, in the Boston Globe . Not yet anyway. Michelle Obama's efforts to insert government between your fork and your mouth may lead to a federal Department of Food someday. The effort however is already underway at the municipal level; according to the Globe, Baltimore and "other major cities have begun hiring food czars to help combat some of the ills of urban life."

The City of Boston has recently joined the eat your broccoli brigade, creating the $75,000/year (plus benefits) position of "Food Policy Director" with an "ambitious help increase access to fresh eats and expand opportunities for urban farming." Baltimore has similar goals:

One of Freishtat's first efforts in Baltimore has been pushing for changing city law to allow for urban farming, an initiative she calls "zoning for zucchinis.''

Cute name, but it's not clear to me how growing zucchini will "combat the ills of urban life." ...

And is it really a good idea to devote urban space to small-scale food production? I thought greenies were against urban sprawl, that the most efficient model was a densely populated urban core, surrounded by open space and agricultural land.

Food czars also believe in the redemptive power of farmers' markets-healthy "local" food brought into "food deserts" by organic farmers who care about the holistic nature of food, in stark contrast to industrial food conglomerates. Harvesting vegetables in cities like Boston and Baltimore is however, one might say, highly seasonal. Corn doesn't grow well in January in Cambridge, and outdoor markets aren't much fun in the winter either. As a result, the government subsidizes expensive local produce for two months, competing with local grocery stores that supply us year-round.

But at least we feel good about ourselves, and governments get yet another opportunity to control our lives.

Wilson speaks of Food Czars and their danger but is he aware of who the first food czar in the country is? Michael Taylor, a Monsanto executive, is the "Food Safety" Czar at the FDA. And Monsanto is number one, unethically, among all the hundreds of unethical corporations in the world. That should give people an inkling that putting food czars in place may not be perfectly salutary. And to make food czars even less appealing, Taylor is also the mind behind "food safety," just as he was the man who designed a way to sue farmers for honestly labeling their milk as rBGH-free. He is most highly skilled in Orwell-speak. If it sounds good and Taylor was involved, chances are it is actually not good.

"Food Safety" is not about food safety, it turns out. It is a concealed corporate weapon being used already to destroy local food systems and local farmers, and it is occurring world wide as the multinationals make moves to globalize and control all food in the world.

Mr. Wilson makes the mistake of believing that "Food Safety" is a liberal thing, just as liberals make the mistake of believing there is anything good in "food safety." It is understandable that Mr. Wilson sees liberals as central to this and that liberals themselves have been taken in to believe "food safety" is a good thing, since it has been carefully promoted to appeal to them. More than a year of corporate stories on food contamination and the need to "go after the corporations" was the drum beat. What liberal wouldn't want to put corporations in their place and save children from tainted peanut butter, meat, and cookie batter?

But the poor liberals will certainly not be getting what they think they will. For some reason they know that when the US government promotes "freedom and democracy" for other countries, it is a lie, but when it promotes "food safety" they assume the same government is telling the truth.

If the USAID can call genetic engineering "sustainable agriculture," it should come as no surprise that the following words might be far from what any sane person would think say.

Boston's "Food Policy Director' [has] an "ambitious help increase access to fresh eats and expand opportunities for urban farming."

For decoding what is really being said, Bostonians might want to look to Detroit, where "urban farming" has turned out to mean industrial farming, just the industrial farming everyone is sick of and sick from and not the organic liberals would automatically assume. Urban farming in Detroit, as sold by the government there, also includes wiping out poor black neighborhoods.

Increasing "access to fresh eats" also sounds so positive, suggesting that the food czar will be increasing or helping farmers markets and CSAs, but if the direction that is occurring in Europe and elsewhere is any indication, a food czar (or more specifically, the power behind that role) is put in place to raise "food safety" standards on everything markets and CSAs need to operate, until they collapse.

"Put in place." That is, not voted on. An entirely new and totally position is created undemocratically, to take control over the greatest necessity in life. A true Czar.

Holly Freishat, Baltimore's food czar and the first in the nation, looks like such a nice person. But her friendly face and organic bio is just what is required by industry to open the door to this unheard of power. Her appealing qualities are a PR necessity to convince liberals that a food czar will be a wonderful thing for them, so no one stops to notice their loss of control over their own food. Industry is greenwashing totalitarian control by playing on liberal trust in regulations, a trust they are only slowly beginning to question as they watch lobbyists take over government, government agencies become satellite offices of industry, and the Supreme Court vote against constitutionality.

How did these food czars pop up?

Did local farmers or producers request a government official to control food in their area? No. Did ordinary people demand someone be in charge of their food? No. Did either group lobby to get money for that position? No. Then who? Take a guess. The food industry and agribusiness.

So, it is ludicrous to believe these industries, which are working so hard to get Boston (and other cities) to install these local "czars," are interested in increasing access to to fresh food from independent farmers and food producers. These are their competition. Local fresh food and real urban farming are worth not one dime to corporate bottom lines. They must be gotten rid of, not helped. But how can industry do that? They can scare people and offer them "food safety" or they can entice people by saying a new food czar will bring them more fresh food. Liberals are relieved by one and excited by the other, ignoring this was entirely undemocratically arranged and missing the control they are letting into their lives and over the most vital thing they and their families need to exist.

They love Vandana Shiva but don't listen to her warnings about food laws.

Though liberals are waking up to Obama's falsehoods about the war, torture, rendition, Guantanamo, and much more, but when it comes to their own food, they are still asleep. They don't know their CSAs and farmers markets are in real trouble. They don't see the orchestrated corporate plan over food which is moving forward like a steam roller, altering laws at city, state, federal and international levels.

So, Wilson is right that this has to do with control. But he misses that it has nothing to do with bringing healthy fresh food to Boston or Baltimore or anywhere else (though that may happen initially to lull liberals into welcoming control by czars, not remembering Obama's promises and distance from later reality).

What happens when "food safety" or "food czar" meets farmers markets will not be pretty. Worse, the giant "food safety" bill in the Senate that was proposed by Hillary Clinton, even would bring in DHS and DOD, and is perfectly clear that control over food will be turned over to the WTO and international agencies.

The last big government food safety plan was HACCP (a Bill Clinton proposal). It was as much of a "con job" as the current one, with food safety actually a festering fraud. And most interestingly, the same international interests who just wrecked the economy are behind these phony food safety bills.

Liberals in Boston who care so much about helping others are finding out now that the Obamacare they pushed so hard for will not be "better for the poor." In fact, in Massachusetts, it will actually cost the poor double what they were paying for coverage, it will not cover children with pre-existing conditions, and corporations are considering dropping coverage for their workers.

Liberals in Boston might want to take that lesson into account in order to stop being taken in by pleasing words and friendly faces, especially when it comes to the food they feed their family. They might want to start investigating exactly what power over local food would be given to any new "food czar." Because while Baltimore put in someone "nice" with an organic background, ideal PR for selling a program of control, making it look helpful and harmless, liberals need to realize that she can be replaced in a heartbeat. They need to remember the thrill they felt when Merrigan was put in at the USDA because she was pro-organic farming. But now ...

... she declared herself a longtime believer in biotechnology and urged the soybean growers to support USDA’s proposals to help developing countries establish regulatory agencies that can evaluate biotech crops.

Freishat doesn't matter. It is the undemocratic methods used to create this position and the undemocratic power over everyone's food begin turned over to an unelected "czar" and the agencies that will begin following their orders, that matter.

Liberals should know that the corporations are doing all they can to take control of food throughout the world and not believe that somehow their city, their farmers market, their family is immune.

To get a sense of how dire this is, liberals need to pay attention to what the FDA under Monsanto's Taylor has asserted in court about Americans having no rights to contract with farmers, no rights over choosing food or consuming it or feeding it to their children, and even no rights over their bodily and physical health.

Liberals need to see this so in their own towns they stop passively allowing unelected officials massive power over food, the central element of their existence. And based on what? Nice sounding "promises."

Liberals must start to take control of laws in their own cities and there is an effective means to do just that.

They can learn how the law actually stops them from protecting their communities, the environment, and their rights, and how they can organize in their community to change those rules. Read more...

Liberals can come together with community groups and municipalities to write and adopt laws that assert community rights, including the right to local self-government, the rights of nature, and the subordination of corporate privilege to the rights of the community. Read more...

They can and must take control of food themselves. Through their own democratic power, they can bring into their communities all the farmers markets and organic urban farming they so strongly desire and truly need.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

How many things could a child find wrong in this vaccine picture?

by S. Stone

The H1N1 vaccines are not "just like regular flu vaccines" as the government insisted, but contain nanoparticles, making them highly experimental. Mandating their use means forcing people into a medical experiment in violation of the Nuremberg Code.

"Some of the H1N1 vaccine ingredients are so deadly that they were used in Auschwitz-Birkenau to kill mentally ill people during World War II." ~ Leif Arnold

" ... Arnold [filed] charges against the Swedish government in which five departments are accused of: "Violation of the Nuremberg Convention, Helsinki Declaration and the ethical principles within medical research; Violations against the Biological Weapons Antiterrorist Act (1998-1990); Misleading information; Propaganda; Exposing individuals to harm; Lack in protection of society and preparedness; and Negligence."

And now the untested H1N1 vaccines with their toxic ingredients have been combined with regular flu vaccine, making it impossible for people to get only a normal flu vaccine and creating the likelihood that millions will take it without realizing.

This is occurring against a background in which CBS proved that the CDC had lied about the cases of swine flu in the US, which were insignificant.

Yet two days after the CDC was exposed for putting out false numbers, Obama declared a national emergency, which activated FEMA, removed Americans' rights, and negated all requirements for testing of the vaccines.

Now the H1N1 pandemic itself has been exposed by the EU parliament as a kickback scheme between the WHO and the pharmaceutical industry.

And yet Sibelius at HHS has quietly extended the "H1N1 pandemic" (in essence only a corrupt financial scheme) until 2012. Though making no medical sense, this leaves US Northcom on the ground (a first in US history) for a flu (that is barely more than a cold) and continues Obama's false national emergency, including no requirements for testing the vaccines.

In the midst of this potentially deadly and increasingly suspect situation with vaccines, the FDA has gone even further and quietly made two significantly threatening vaccine-related legal moves of its own.

1. In a case involving farmers' rights to ship their product across state lines, and buried in language about food, the FDA made the stunning assertion in court that there was no "fundamental right to [one's] bodily and physical health."

2. The FDA has just formulated a Rule Change that would deregulate the inclusion of additional ingredients to vaccines, giving "one staff employee the sole authority to allow "exceptions or alternatives" when drug companies want to change vaccine ingredients, such as preservatives (like thimerosal) or adjuvants (like aluminum) or the amount of residual protein and antibiotics in vaccines."

This past spring, the FDA took a hands-off approach to Merck's admission that DNA from a lethal pig virus is contaminating doses of RotaTeq vaccine being swallowed by millions of newborn babies.1 ...

Last year when federal health officials declared a pandemic H1N1 "swine flu" national emergency, drug companies put a full court press on the FDA to fast track licensure of highly reactive oil based squalene adjuvants 4 and the use of new technology, like insect cells, 5 to make pandemic influenza vaccines. ... [S]qualene adjuvants, 6 ... hyperstimulate the immune system and have been associated with autoimmunity, 7 8 9 10 and ... insect cells, 11 ... could be contaminated with insect viruses. 12 13 14

... there are tens of thousands of doses of squalene that the federal government bought and is stored in warehouses waiting to be used. 17 ...

The most significant item.

The CDC just voted that every single person in the country over the age of six months should take the suspect H1N1 flu vaccine.

What science is behind this? Precious little. What connections? Large ones.

Were the vaccines to be mandated, the US would be violating the Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg Code was created after WWII to prevent a repeat of the pharmaceutical industry's hideous forced medical experiments under Hitler, for whom they were the primary support. Now, that very same industry, previously convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal of medical war crimes including killing people with vaccines, is powerful at the CDC.

Through the CDC, the vaccine industry is promoting the H1N1 vaccine for every person in the country over 6 months. just as last year the CEOs of the drug companies voted in Geneva at a WHO meeting to make the H1N1 vaccines mandatory worldwide.

The pharmaceutical industry would be reclaiming power to perform forced medical experiments, this time on 350 million non-informed, non-consenting American subjects of all ages. In pushing for mandatory vaccination, the industry is attempting to wrench itself free from the fundamental human rights which the Nuremberg Code brought the world, and to break free from morality itself. Not unlike Goldman Sachs with everyone's money and BP in the Gulf of Mexico, the industry wants profits and to do literally whatever it wants in the process, no matter the dire consequences to the human beings (or other living things).

The pharmaceutical industry wants to be able to put anything whatever into any vaccine, with no testing, and force it on every person in the country agains their will.

And last year, they came perilously came close to doing just that, mixing a bioweapon (avian flu) into a normal flu vaccine, and then falsely labeling it a "seasonal flu vaccine." People taking it would not have known what they were taking and so would be exposing themselves to possible death, against their will.

"Baxter, an International pharmaceutical company based in America, has just been caught mixing live Avian Flu virus (H5N1) with common flu virus, in a flu vaccine. Baxter International’s research facility in Orth-Donau Austria was the facility that shipped the contaminated flu vaccine to other facilities in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Germany. The incident was discovered by a technician in a facility in the Czech Republic, who injected ferrets with the vaccine as a normal test procedure. The ferrets died. ...

"If not discovered by a mid-level technician, many of the people immunized with the Baxter vaccine might have been infected with avian flu, which can be deadly.

"But it’s worse than that.

"H5N1 is not easily transmissible between people. However, the common flu virus that it was mixed with does easily infect people. The real danger in this incident is that the two viruses could have mixed genetic material and mutated when injected into tens of thousands of people, and could have created a hybrid virus that was both deadly, and transmissible."

Yet, the current H1N1 vaccine mixes three animal virusesn with a highly contagious flu virus, and also risks mutating.

One does not need to consider the genocidal Nazi histories of these companies to be concerned. One need only see what Baxter did only last year (and that WHO doing nothing about it) or know that Pfizer recently received the largest criminal fine in history for "fraudulent marketing of drugs" (but one of their crimes), to consider that the pharmaceutical companies involved in the vaccines leave something significant to be desired ethically and morally.

And there is the inescapable financial logic of it all. Mandating vaccines ends all need to market them and also creates a hugely enlarged market of everyone - not just the sick. And infecting people with contaminated vaccines has the upside of creating what economists call “supplier-induced demand," following what Rath calls "The Laws of Pharma."

The vaccine pictures contains so many things wrong, that like a child spotting hidden things in a drawing, one need only look carefully to see them begin to reveal themselves, until one wonders how they could have been missed in the first place. And they become easier and easier to spot since very single one of those wrong things faces in one direction - untold billions in profit for one of the largest and most corrupt industries in the world, and danger, disability and even death for the public.