Download the entire pdf's of this excellent article by Bay Chronicle editor Keri Molloy, with special contributions by Auckland biochemist Dr. Robert Mann...excerpts below.http://www.mediafire.com/?tzdy2ygyhwehttp://www.mediafire.com/?0noinx22tjy“ ‘Many unanswered scientific questions remain about health hazards from such chemicals, as they got registered after only perfunctory testing. Also, the routine copout ‘if used according to label’ should not be relied upon, as it is well known that use is often not in accord with instructions…
The burden of proof should not be forced onto the public to prove harm, but instead the precautionary principle should be applied to protect them from exposure to chemicals which are reasonably expected to cause serious types of damage, e.g., cancer or birth defects,’ he says.”
" ‘The Health Department has for decades acted as a protective front for the chemical industry, refusing to gather detailed statistics that could possibly reveal damage from xenochemicals spread around our environment.’ “ “
‘Some farming districts in New Zealand had higher densities of dioxin-containing 2, 4, 5-T aerial-sprayed upon them than the total attributable to Agent Orange (50:50 2, 4, 5-T/2, 4-D) in Viet Nam. This was done mainly in springtime. Aerial drift onto human dwellings in these sparsely populated areas, as well as into local towns, was unavoidable, given the lax methods of spraying. Drinking water collected on roofs could, as we pointed out in 1971, contain dangerous doses of dioxin.’ “
Dr. Theo Colborn is the author of Our Stolen Future. The video below explains what endocrine disrupting substances are, how they work, and what the implications are for life as we now know it.
VIDEO “The Male Predicament” 
http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/endocrine.videoplayer.php
“A Case for Revisiting the Safety of Pesticides: A Closer Look at Neurodevelopment” Dr. Theo Colbornhttp://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7940/7940.htmlhttp://motherjones.com/politics/1998/03/theo-colborn
THEO COLBORNA controversial scientist speaks on plastics, IQ, and the womb— By Marilyn Berlin SnellFor her groundbreaking work on the effect everyday chemicals have on children, Theodora "Theo" Colborn has been called "the Rachel Carson of the '90s." Just as Carson was pilloried for her 1962 book Silent Spring, which warned of the dangers of the pesticide DDT, Colborn has been in the hot seat for her 1996 book Our Stolen Future (co-authored with Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers). Colborn's controversial message is that even low-dose exposures to many of the man-made chemicals found in common plastics, cleaning compounds, and cosmetics can affect newborn babies and developing fetuses, and can cause a range of problems, including low IQs, genital malformations, low sperm counts, and infertility.Though scientists have voiced concerns for more than 25 years about the chemicals that disrupt the endocrine (or hormone-secreting) glands, researchers like Colborn are using a multidisciplinary approach—merging toxicology, endocrinology, embryology, and psychology—which has resulted in recent breakthroughs. Some critics have dismissed Colborn's work as fear-mongering pseudoscience. However, in a December 1997 report published by the National Institutes of Health, a researcher set out to review the studies cited in Our Stolen Future on lowered sperm counts and was surprised to find that sperm counts in Europe and the U.S. are even lower than Colborn had initially reported.Now 70, Colborn raised four children and worked as both a pharmacist and a sheep rancher before her environmental concerns inspired her to go back to school. She received her doctorate in zoology at age 58 and is now a senior scientist at the World Wildlife Fund, where she directs its Wildlife and Contaminants Program.Q: A recent NIH report showed that a number of organic pollutants and industrial chemicals act like hormones, such as estrogens that can either bring out feminine characteristics or work to counteract male hormones.A: That's right.Q: What are the implications of this?A: What I have always said is that we are neutering the population—we are making females more masculine and we are making males more feminine. Up until day 56 from the day of conception you can't tell the sex of the fetus. The tissue that's there is going to eventually produce testicles or ovaries. Now, it takes just a slight tweak of a hormone to make it grow into a male tissue and become a testicle; a tweak in the other direction and it will become female tissue. What we're finding in fish and birds and even mammals now are ovotestes, or testes that have ovarian tissue in them.We've uncovered a new series of subtle effects, which probably take place during embryonic and fetal development and which have long-term effects that keep an individual from reaching his or her full development.Q: What kind of effects?A: We're seeing an increase in hypospadias in boys. Hypospadias is a condition where the urethra doesn't come out the end of the penis. This particular developmental process starts on day 56 in the womb and ends on day 84.Q: And it has nothing to do with genetic predisposition?A: Absolutely not. But what can cause this condition is dioxin and DDT. And it's not just this type of hypospadias that is increasing but also the more severe form, where the end of the urethra actually comes out of the scrotum. It is almost impossible to repair surgically. Hypospadias and undescended testicles—another condition that results from males not fully developing in the womb—put young men at greater risk of developing testicular cancer, which is one of the fastest-growing cancers in the world, and is occurring in younger and younger men. Finally, males with hypospadias and undescended testicles always produce less sperm, which means they are more likely to have reproductive problems.All of this should be taken into consideration when discussing pregnancy, but we often forget about the embryo. Even the federal government's new Children's Health Initiative talks about the child from the day it's born through to puberty. They don't talk about prenatal exposure. For some reason, there is this fear that if we talk about the embryo, people will mix it up with the abortion issue.Q: You've determined that early exposure to toxins such as lead, PCBs, and dioxins is much more harmful than exposure later in life. Why?A: During embryonic and fetal development, the brain isn't developed yet, so you've got an individual that has no feedback mechanism to protect itself. The fetus is still growing new tissue, constructing its nervous system, constructing elements of its immune system and the reproductive tract. When all your organs are formed and fully functioning, it takes a lot more to blow them away.Q: The transfer of these endocrine-disrupting chemicals occurs not only during pregnancy but also during breast-feeding. According to Environmental Protection Agency estimates, an infant who is breast-fed for one year will receive between 4 and 12 percent of its total lifetime exposure to dioxins. Is breast-feeding doing more harm than good at this point?A: We don't have enough evidence yet. But I'll tell you quite frankly that I would not want to have to make the decision myself today. It appears that breast-feeding strengthens a baby's immune system, but we also wonder how these chemicals might be interfering with immune competency in these children. So far, the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, but we just don't know.Q: Is there a way to prove a causal relationship between endocrine-disrupting chemicals and developmental problems, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children?A: We're never going to be able to prove a causal relationship of anything in a human being because we can't feed chemicals to human beings and wait for them to grow up. With ADHD it's very difficult because the syndrome is probably precipitated prenatally or in early infancy through something that interfered with the development of the brain. And the presence of that chemical in that individual later on in life may or may not indicate that it was the cause. Despite the fact that there are a lot of misdiagnosed kids, I still think ADHD is on the increase. And the evidence is almost overwhelming that these chemicals are involved.Q: Yet in response to the data in your book, one conservative journal stated flatly that there was absolutely no conclusive evidence linking developmental problems and environmental chemicals.A: That's not true. I'll just mention one new report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that says a sizable proportion of our child population is being exposed to PCBs and their co-contaminants and that these chemicals are affecting our children's neurological and neuromuscular development.Q: According to United Nations statistics, from 1950 to 1955 the global fertility rate was 5 children per woman; today it's estimated at 2.8. Many hail this decline and cite education, family planning, urbanization, and later marriage as the cause. Not much attention is paid to possible environmental factors.A: Isn't that amazing? We first began to see a decline in 1970. That is about the time that the first set of individuals exposed in the womb were reaching reproductive age. I've said there's a connection all along, but no one wants to take chemicals into consideration.Q: But surely we have to acknowledge social factors.A: Of course. But environmental factors have been a lot more important than people realize. Even Paul Ehrlich [a Stanford University population biologist], who has focused on demographic shifts caused by women getting an education, which impacts fertility rates, is backing down. He has admitted now that we also have to include toxic chemicals in that demographic shift.Q: How have corporations responded to your research?A: Let's put it this way: Last night on television I saw a new advertisement on the wonders of plastic and how safe it makes the world for children. I know this is in direct response to our work. This is how they are spending their money: to create the image of motherhood and apple pie where they know they are going to be blasted as the science comes forward.Q: Are any working with you?A: The major chemical manufacturers—the petroleum processors, the plastics producers, and the pesticide manufacturers—are not. But the people they supply are. The people who actually produce and package the products that come into your home are very concerned, because they know in the end they are going to be held liable.Q: But if endocrine-disrupting chemicals and their byproducts are so widely used in paper, solvents, and plastics, how do we avoid them?A: We may have to do triage. We may need to decide that there are certain places where we are going to use some of these chemicals, like in airplanes, in bridges, or in construction materials that we're not directly exposed to in buildings. The fact is, some plastics are far more durable than steel. But we've got to get rid of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in children's toys, cosmetics, and cleaning compounds.Q: Is the government doing more than just calling for more studies?A: The EPA is moving very rapidly. But it can't do anything until we come up with recommendations for screening and testing methods.However, every industry has already started testing its products. They're not waiting. I am convinced, and I have said it publicly, that industry is going to make a tremendous amount of change before the government ever even gets around to writing the first regulation. They are modifying products already.Q: Which products?A: Well, for example, you used to see "microwavable plastic wrap" in the supermarket. Now, most manufacturers just put "plastic wrap" on the box and give clear instructions for microwave use. [Studies have shown that chemicals leach out of some plastics when heated.]Q: To a layperson, your warnings about the dangers of endocrine disrupters are compelling. But when the research is so heatedly contested, one can't help but question whether this isn't just another "technology is bad" campaign.A: People should look to the scientific journals, but they should also look very carefully at where the scientists who research and write about this issue get their funding.The issue is very confusing, in part, because there are a lot of industries involved—petroleum, chemical, pesticide, pharmaceutical. But then look at the scientists who are trying to demonstrate that endocrine disruption is real. Where do they get their money? Follow the money. That's what the public is going to have to do.Q: But that means independent scientists are going to have to lead the way, even though they don't have funding resources.A: The responsibility lies with the industries that have made the money on these products. They could easily afford to put up a collective $100 million per year to support the kind of research agenda we need. Industry has a moral responsibility to put that money into the pot. And, let's face it: They want a healthy population to which they can sell their products.Q: Can we be realistic for a moment? Do you actually think industry is going to be willing to act in the public interest when there are so few examples of this ever happening?A: That's exactly why I'm making this point. I am praying that we can find one or two really conscionable corporate executives who are willing to dedicate the rest of their lives to future generations. This is our only hope. This is why I'm doing this work. I pray I live long enough so that I can needle enough people to do it.
VIDEO "The Fluoride Deception" Interview with Christopher Brysonhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988#VIDEO "The Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception" Interview with Dr. Monteithhttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7984669833566646476#http://www.naturalnews.com/027693_fluoride_cancer.htmlFluoride Causes Premature Births, Brain Degradation, Bone Loss, Cancer and Hormone Disruption(NaturalNews) A recent study conducted by researchers from the State University of New York (SUNY) found that fluoride ingestion may be responsible for causing premature births. Presented to the American Public Health Association at its annual meeting, these findings ratchet up yet another detrimental consequence of ingesting this toxic poison that is added to most American municipal water supplies.Sodium fluoride, a waste byproduct of the aluminum industry, is touted by most mainstream health bureaucracies as one of the greatest public health achievements ever discovered. The American Dental Association praises the medication of the public through fluoridated municipal water supplies, claiming that it has done wonders to prevent tooth decay. A simple investigation beyond the glaringly false rhetoric, however, reveals the dirty reality behind fluoride and the incredible harm it inflicts upon those who ingest it.Contrary to popular belief, fluoride is not a natural substance; it is the byproduct of the aluminum and nuclear industries' use of fluorine gas. The Merck Index lists fluoride's primary use as rat and cockroach poison and it is a known carcinogen. It wasn't until the 1950s that the FDA was somehow convinced that the poison allegedly helped protect teeth.Fluoride used in Nazi death campsThe first known instances of deliberate water fluoridation were in Nazi Germany ghettos and prison camps. Sodium fluoride was added to the human inmates' water to sterilize them and to cause them to become docile, subservient subjects willing to comply with orders.Charles Perkins, a research chemist, wrote a letter to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research in 1954 about fluoride. In it, he stated that repeated ingestion of low doses of fluoride over a long period of time will destroy the areas of the human brain that trigger resistance to tyranny and unlawful coercion and control.Conditions caused by fluoride ingestionFluoride ingestion is responsible for causing thyroid dysfunction. The National Research Council (NRC) warns that ingestion of .01 - .03 mg/kg/day of fluoride, which is easily achieved by drinking fluoridated water, can severely inhibit proper thyroid function.Other problems caused by fluoride include dental fluorosis, a disease of the teeth, weakening of bones and bone loss, bone cancer, kidney problems, and hormone disruption.Many communities have succeeded in removing fluoride from their water supplies through local campaigns and ballot measures. Since medical professionals and organizations are increasingly becoming opposed to fluoride use, the momentum is stronger than ever to rid the nation's water supplies of toxic fluoride.Sources:Study Links Fluoride to Premature Births - The BatavianAbout 'Fluoride' - Truth Every Mother Should Know - Greater ThingsFluoride Action Network
An excellent and shockingly informative slide-show on pesticides. “The Unintended Consequences of Convenience: Why Organic Matters” www.rachelcarsonhomestead.org/Portals/0/Why%20Organic%20Matters.pdf
Two links to scary information concerning what those 3-digit food additives really are...ACIDS, ANTIOXIDANTS, MINERAL SALTShttp://mbm.net.au/health/296-385.htm
MISCELLANEOUShttp://mbm.net.au/health/900-1520.htm
NOTE FROM JEFF: thanks to William Engdahl for sending this recent expose. WHO ‘Dr Flu’ under investigation for gross conflict of interest
By F. William Engdahl author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
8 December 2009
The man with the nickname “Dr Flu”, Professor Albert Osterhaus, of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam Holland has been named by Dutch media researchers as the person at the center of the worldwide Swine Flu H1N1 Influenza A 2009 pandemic hysteria. Not only is Osterhaus the connecting person in an international network that has been described as the Pharma Mafia, he is THE key advisor to WHO on influenza and is intimately positioned to personally profit from the billions of euros in vaccines allegedly aimed at H1N1.
Earlier this year the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament undertook an investigation into alleged conflicts of interest and financial improprieties of the well-known Dr. Osterhaus. Outside of Holland and the Dutch media, the only note of the sensational investigation into Osterhaus’ business affairs came in a tiny note in the respected British magazine, Science.
Osterhaus's credentials and expertise in his field were not in question. What is in question, according to a short report published by the journal Science, are his links to corporate interests that stand to potentially profit from the swine flu pandemic. Science carried the following brief note in its October 16 2009 issue about Osterhaus:
"For the past 6 months, one could barely switch on the television in the Netherlands without seeing the face of famed virus hunter Albert Osterhaus talking about the swine flu pandemic. Or so it has seemed. Osterhaus, who runs an internationally renowned virus lab at Erasmus Medical Center, has been Mr. Flu. But last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development.Last week, his reputation took a nosedive after it was alleged that he has been stoking pandemic fears to promote his own business interests in vaccine development. As Science went to press, the Dutch House of Representatives had even slated an emergency debate about the matter."
On November 3, 2009 it appeared that Osterhaus emerged with at least the damage somewhat under control. An updated Science blog noted, “The House of Representatives of the Netherlands today rejected a motion asking the government to sever all ties with virologist Albert Osterhaus of Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who had been accused of conflicts of interest in his role as a government adviser. But Dutch health minister Ab Klink, meanwhile, announced a "Sunshine Act" compelling scientists to disclose their financial ties to companies.”
The Minister, Ab Klink, reportedly a personal friend of Osterhaus, subsequently issued a statement on the ministry’s website, claiming that Osterhaus was but one of many scientific advisers to the ministry on vaccines for H1N1, and that the Ministry “knew” about the financial interests of Osterhaus. Nothing out of the ordinary, merely pursuit of science and public health, so it seemed.
More careful investigation into the Osterhaus Affair suggests that the world-renowned Dutch Virologist may be at the very center of a multi-billion Euro pandemic fraud which has used human beings in effect as human guinea pigs with untested vaccines and in cases now emerging, resulting in deaths or severe bodily paralysis or injury.
The ‘Bird Shit Hoax’
Albert Osterhaus is no small fish. He stands at the global nexus of every major virus panic of the past decade from the mysterious SARS deaths in HongKong, where current WHO Director Margaret Chan got her start in her career as a local health official. According to his official bio at the European Commission, Osterhaus was engaged in April 2003, at the height of the panic over SARS (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) in investigation of the Hong Kong outbreak of respiratory illnesses. The EU report states, “he again showed his skill at moving fast to tackle a serious problem. Within three weeks he had proved that the disease was caused by a newly discovered coronavirus that resides in civet cats, other carnivorous animals or bats.”
Then Osterhaus moved on as SARS cases vanished from view, this time publicizing dangers of what he claimed was H5N1 Avian Flu. In 1997 he had already began sounding the alarm following the death in Hong Kong of a three-year-old who Osterhaus learned had had direct contact with birds. Osterhaus went into high gear lobbying across Holland and Europe claiming that a deadly new mutation of avian flu had jumped to humans and that drastic measures were required. He claimed to be the first scientist in the world to show that H5N1 could be transferred into humans.
In a BBC interview in October 2005 on the danger of Avian Flu, Osterhaus declared, “…if the virus manages indeed to, to mutate itself in such a way that it can transmit from human to human, then we have a completely different situation, we might be at the start of the pandemic.” He added, “there is a real chance that this virus could be trafficked by the birds all the way to Europe. There is a real risk, but nobody can estimate the risk at this moment, because we haven't done the experiments.” It never did manage to mutate, but he was ready to “do the experiments,” presumably for a hefty fee.
To bolster his frightening pandemic scenario, Osterhaus and his lab assistants in Rotterdam began assiduously assembling and freezing samples of, well, bird shit, in an attempt to build a more scientific argument. He claimed that at certain times of the year up to 30% of all European birds acted as carriers of the deadly avian virus, H5N1. He also claimed that farmers working with hens and chickens were then exposed. Osterhaus briefed journalists who dutifully noted his alarm. Politicians were alerted. He wrote papers proposing that the far away deaths in Asia from what he termed H5N1 were coming to Europe, presumably on the wongs or in the innards of deadly sick infected birds. He claimed that migratory birds were carrying the deadly new disease as far west as Rügen and Ukraine. He conveniently ignored the fact that birds do not migrate east to west but rather north to south.
Osterhaus’ Avian Flu alarm campaign really took off in 2003 when a Dutch veterinary doctor became ill and died. Osterhaus claimed the death was from H5N1. He convinced the Dutch government to order slaughter of millions of chickens. Yet no other infected persons died from the alleged H5N1. Osterhaus claimed that that was simply proof of the effectiveness of the preemptive slaughter campaign.
Osterhaus claimed that bird feces were the source, via air bombardment or droppings, onto populations and birds below. That was the vehicle for the spread of the deadly new Asian strain of H5N1 he insisted.
There was only one problem with the now voluminous frozen samples of diverse bird excrement he and his associated had collected and frozen at his institute. There was not one single confirmed example of H5N1 virus found in any of his samples. At a May 2006 Congress of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Osterhaus and his Erasmus colleagues were forced to admit that in testing 100,000 samples of their assiduously saved bird feces, they had discovered not one single case of H5N1 virus.
At a WHO conference in Verona in 2008 titled “Avian influenza at the Human-Animal Interface,” in a presentation to scientific colleagues undoubtedly less impressed by appeals to pandemic emotion than the non-scientific public, Osterhaus admitted that “A proper risk assessment of H5N1 as the cause of a new pandemic cannot be made with the currently available information.” By then, however, his sights were already firmly on other possible pandemic triggers to focus his vaccination activities. Swine Flu and WHO corruption
When no mass wave of human deaths from Avian Flu materialized and after Roche, maker of Tamiflu and GlaxoSmithKline had banked billions of dollars in profits from worldwide government stockpiling of their dangerous and reportedly ineffective antiviral drugs, Tamiflu by Roche, and Relenza by GlaxoSmithKline, Osterhaus and other WHO advisers turned to other greener pastures.
By April 2009 their search seemed rewarded as La Gloria, a small Mexican village in Veracruz, reported a case of a small child ill with what had been diagnosed as “Swine Flu” or H1N1. With indecent haste the propaganda apparatus of the World Health Organization in Geneva went into gear with statements from the director-general Dr Margaret Chan, about a possible danger of a global pandemic.
Chan made such irresponsible statements as declaring “a public health emergency of international concern.” The further cases of outbreak at La Gloria Mexico were reported on one medical website as, “a ‘strange’ outbreak of acute respiratory infection, which led to bronchial pneumonia in some pediatric cases. According to a local resident, symptoms included fever, severe cough, and large amounts of phlegm.”
Notably those were symptoms which would make sense in terms of the proximity of one of the world’s largest pig industrial feeding concentrations at La Gloria owned by Smithfield Farms of the USA. Residents had picketed the Smithfield Farms site in Mexico for months complaining of severe respiratory problems from the fecal waste lagoons. That possible cause of the diseases in La Gloria apparently did not interest Osterhaus and his colleagues advising the WHO. The long-awaited “pandemic” that Osterhaus had predicted ever since his involvement with SARS in the Guandgong Province of China in 2003, was now finally at hand.
On June 11, 2009 Margaret Chan of WHO made the declaration of a Phase 6 “Pandemic Emergency” regarding the spread of H1N1 Influenza. Curiously in announcing it, she noted, “On present evidence, the overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment.” She then added, ”Worldwide, the number of deaths is small…we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of severe or fatal infections.”
It later was learned that Chan acted, following heated debates inside WHO, on the advice of the scientific advisory group of WHO, or SAGE, the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts. One of the members of SAGE at the time and today was Dr. Albert “Mr Flu” Osterhaus.
Not only was Osterhaus in a key position to advocate the panic-inducing WHO “Pandemic emergency” declaration. He was also chairman of the leading private European Scientific Working group on Influenza (ESWI), which describes itself as a “multidisciplinary group of key opinion leaders in influenza [that] aims to combat the impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza.” Osterhaus’ ESWI is the vital link as they themselves describe it, “between the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and the University of Connecticut, USA.”
What is more significant about the ESWI is that its work is entirely financed by the same pharma mafia companies that make billions on the pandemic emergency as governments around the world are compelled to buy and stockpile vaccines on declaration of a WHO Pandemic. The funders of ESWI include H1N1 vaccine maker Novartis, Tamiflu distributor, Hofmann-La Roche, Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others.
Not to lose the point, the world-leading virologist, official adviser on H1N1 to the governments of the UK and Holland, Dr Albert Osterhaus, head of the Department of Virology at the Erasmus Medical College of Rotterdam, also sat on the WHO’s elite SAGE and served as chairman at the same time of the pharma industry-sponsored ESWI, which in turn urged dramatic steps to vaccinate the world against the grave danger of a new Pandemic they insisted could rival the feared 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic.
The Wall Street bank, JP Morgan, estimated that in large part as a result of the WHO pandemic decision, the giant pharma firms that also finance Osterhaus’ ESWI work, stand to reap some €7.5 to €10 billion in profits.
A fellow member of WHO’s SAGE is Dr Frederick Hayden, of Britain’s Wellcome Trust and reportedly a close friend of Osterhaus. Hayden also receives money for “advisory” services from Roche and GlaxoSmithKline among other pharma giants involved in producing products related to the H1N1 panic.
Chairman of WHO’s SAGE is another British scientist, Prof. David Salisbury of the UK Department of Health. He also heads the WHO H1N1 Advisory Group. Salisbury is a robust defender of the pharma industry. He has been accused by UK health citizen health group One Click of covering up the proven links between vaccines and an explosive rise in infant autism as well as links between the vaccine Gardasil and palsy and even death.
Then on September 28, 2009 the same Salisbury stated, “There is a very clear view in the scientific community that there is no risk from the inclusion of Thiomersal.” The vaccine being used for H1N1 in Britain is primarily produced by GlaxoSmithKlilne. It contains the mercury preservative Thiomersol. Because of growing evidence that Thiomersol in vaccines might be related to autism in children in the United States, in 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Public Health Service called for it to be removed from vaccines.
Yet another SAGE member at WHO with intimate financial ties to the vaccine makers that benefit from SAGE’s recommendations to WHO is Dr. Arnold Monto, a paid consultant to vaccine maker MedImmune, Glaxo and ViroPharma.
Even more, the meetings of the “independent” scientists of SAGE are attended by “observers” who include, yes, the very vaccine producers GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Baxter and company. One might ask if the SAGE are supposed to be the world’s leading experts on flu and vaccines, why they would ask the vaccine makers to sit in.
In the past decade the WHO, in order to boost funds at its disposal entered into what it calls “public private partnerships.” Instead of receiving its funds solely from member United Nations governments as its original purpose had been, WHO today receives almost double its normal UN budget in the form of grants and financial support from private industry. The industry? The very drug and vaccine makers who benefit from decisions like the June 2009 H1N1 Pandemic emergency declaration. As the main financiers of the WHO bureaucracy, naturally the Pharma Mafia and their friends receive what has been called “open door red carpet treatment” in Geneva.
In an interview with Der Spiegel magazine in Germany, epidemiologist Dr. Tom Jefferson of the Cochrane Collaboration, an organization of independent scientists evaluating all flu related studies, noted the implications of the privatization of WHO and the commercialization of health: “…one of the extraordinary features of this influenza -- and the whole influenza saga -- is that there are some people who make predictions year after year, and they get worse and worse. None of them so far have come about, and these people are still there making these predictions. For example, what happened with the bird flu, which was supposed to kill us all? Nothing. But that doesn't stop these people from always making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry almost waiting for a pandemic to occur.
SPIEGEL: Who do you mean? The World Health Organization (WHO)?
Jefferson: The WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies. They've built this machine around the impending pandemic. And there's a lot of money involved, and influence, and careers, and entire institutions! And all it took was one of these influenza viruses to mutate to start the machine grinding...
When asked if the WHO had deliberately declared the Pandemic Emergency in order to create a huge market for H1N1 vaccines and drugs, Jefferson replied,
“Don't you think there's something noteworthy about the fact that the WHO has changed its definition of pandemic? The old definition was a new virus, which went around quickly, for which you didn't have immunity, and which created a high morbidity and mortality rate. Now the last two have been dropped, and that's how swine flu has been categorized as a pandemic.”
Conveniently enough, the WHO published the new Pandemic definition in April 2009 just in time to allow WHO, on advice of SAGE and others like Albert “Dr Flu” Osterhaus and David Salisbury, to declare the mild cases of flu dubbed H1N1 Influenza A to be declared Pandemic Emergency.
In a relevant footnote, the Washington Post on December 8 in an article on the severity, or lack of same, of the world H1N1 „pandemic“ reported that, “with the second wave of H1N1 infections having crested in the United States, leading epidemiologists are predicting that the pandemic could end up ranking as the mildest since modern medicine began documenting influenza outbreaks.”
Russian Parliamentarian and chairman of the Duma Health Committee, Igor Barinow has called on the Russian Representative to WHO in Geneva to order an official investigation into the growing evidence of massive corruption of the WHO by the pharmaceutical industry. “There are grave accusations of corruption within the WHO,” said Barinow. “An international commission of inquiry is urgently required.”
Endnotes:
Martin Enserink, "In Holland, the Public Face of Flu Takes a Hit", Science, 16 October 2009: Vol. 326. no. 5951, pp. 350 – 351; DOI: 10.1126/science.326_350b. Science, November 3, 2009, Roundup 11/3 The Brink Edition, accessed on http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/ Article from Dutch, De Farma maffia Deel 1 Osterhaus BV, 28 november 2009, accessed in http://hetonderzoek.blogspot.com/2009/11/de-farma-maffia-deel1-osterhaus-bv.htmlMinisterie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Financiële belangen Osterhaus waren bekend Nieuwsbericht, 30 september 2009, accessed in http://www.minvws.nl/nieuwsberichten/pg/2009/osterhaus.asp European Commission, „Research“, Dr Albert Osterhaus, accessed in http://ec.europa.eu/research/profiles/index_en.cfm?p=1_osterhaus Ibid. Jane Corbin, Interview with Dr Albert Osterhaus, BBC Panorama, 4 October, 2005. Karin Steinberger, "Vogelgrippe: Der Mann mit der Vogelperspektive, Seuddeutsche Zeitung", 20 October, 2005, accessed in www.seuddeutsche.de panorama/8/373818/text/ Ibid. Schweinegrippe—Geldgieriger Psychopath Auslöser der Pandemie?, accessed in http://polskaweb.eu/vater-der-neuen-grippen-wahrscheinlich-wahnsinnig-673756422645.html
Ab Osterhaus, External factors influencing H5N1 mutation/reassortment events with pandemic potential, OIE, 7-9 October 2008, Verona, Italy, accessed in http://www.oie.int/eng/info_ev/en_verone.htm WHO Health Advisory, April 2009, accessed in http://www.swine-flu-vaccine.info/ Biosurveillance, Swine Flu in Mexico- Timeline of Events, April 24, 2009, accessed in http://biosurveillance.typepad.com/biosurveillance/2009/04/swine-flu-in-mexico-timeline-of-events.html
Cited in Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, Stærk lobbyisme bag WHO-beslutning om massevaccination , Information, Copenhagen, 15 November 2009 accessed in . http://www.information.dk/215355 Jane Bryant, et al, The One Click Group Response: Prof. David Salisbury Threatens Legal Action, 4 March, 2009, accessed in http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/David%20Salisbury%20Threatens%20One%20Click.pdf
Prof. David Salisbury cited in, Swine flu vaccine to contain axed additive, London Evening Standard, 28 September 2009, accessed in . http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/printArticle.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=316888&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20 Louise Voller et al, op. Cit. Bert Ehgartner, Schwindel mit der Schweinegrippe Ist die Aufregung ein Coup der Pharmaindustrie? Accessed in http://www.profil.at/articles/0944/560/254615/schwindel-schweinegrippe-ist-aufregung-coup-pharmaindustrie
Tom Jefferson, Interview with Epidemiologist Tom Jefferson: 'A Whole Industry Is Waiting For A Pandemic' Der Spiegel, 21 July 2009, accessed in http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.html Ibid. Louise Voller, Kristian Villesen, Mystisk ændring af WHO's definition af en pandemi,Copenhagen Information, 15 November 2009, accessed in http://www.information.dk/215341 Rob Stein, Flu Pandemic Could Be Mild, Washington Post, December 8, 2009. Polskanet, Russland fordert internationale Untersuchung, 5 December 2009, accessed in http://polskaweb.eu/vater-der-neuen-grippen-wahrscheinlich-wahnsinnig-673756422645.html
"Contemplating the teeming life of the shore, we have an uneasy sense of the communication of some universal truth that lies just beyond our grasp. What is the message signalled by the hordes of diatoms, flashing their microscopic lights in the night sea?"
THE EDGE OF THE SEA (1955)
PREFACE
“When we go down to the low-tide line, we enter a world that is as old as the Earth itself – the primeval meeting place of the elements of earth and water, a place of compromise and conflict and eternal change. For us as living creatures it has special meaning as an area in or near which some entity that could be distinguished as life first drifted in shallow waters – reproducing, evolving, yielding that endless varied stream of living things that has surged through time and space to occupy the Earth.”
INTRODUCTION
“To understand the shore, it is not enough to catalog its life. Understanding comes only when, standing on a beach, we can sense the long rhythms of earth and sea that sculptured its land-forms and produced the rock and sand of which it is composed; when we can sense with the eye and ear of the mind the surge of life beating always at its shores – blindly, inexorably pressing for a foothold. True understanding demands intuitive comprehension of the whole…”
THE MARGINAL WORLD
“The edge of the sea is a strange and beautiful place. All through the long history of Earth it has been an area of unrest where waves have broken heavily against the land, where the tides have pressed forward over the continents, receded, and then returned… The shore has a dual nature, changing with the swing of the tides, belonging now to the land, now to the sea…
Only the most hardy and adaptable can survive in a region so mutable, yet the area between the tide lines is crowded with plants and animals. In this difficult world of the shore, life displays its enormous toughness and vitality by occupying almost every conceivable niche.
The shore is an ancient world, for as long as there has been an earth and sea there has been this place of the meeting of land and water. Yet it is a world that keeps alive the sense of continuing creation and of the relentless drive of life. Each time that I enter it, I gain some new awareness of its beauty and its deeper meanings, sensing that intricate fabric of life by which each creature is linked with another, and each with its surroundings…
There is a common thread that links these scenes and memories – the spectacle of life in all its varied manifestations as it has appeared, evolved, and sometimes died out. Underlying the beauty of the spectacle there is meaning and significance. It is the elusiveness of that meaning that haunts us, that sends us again and again into the natural world where the key to the riddle is hidden. It sends us back to the edge of the sea, where the drama of life played its first scene on Earth and perhaps even its prelude; where the forces of evolution are at work today, as they have been since the appearance of what we know as life; and where the spectacle of living creatures faced by the cosmic realities of their world is crystal clear.”
“Then in my thoughts these shores, so different in their nature and in the inhabitants they support, are made one by the unifying touch of the sea. For the differences I sense in this particular instant of time that is mine are but the differences of a moment, determined by our place in the stream of time and in the long rhythms of the sea. Once this rocky coast beneath me was a plain of sand; then the sea rose and found a new shore line. And again in some shadowy future the surf will have ground these rocks to sand and will have returned the coast to its earlier state. And so in my mind’s eye these coastal forms merge and blend in shifting, kaleidoscopic pattern in which there is no finality, no ultimate and fixed reality – earth becoming fluid as the sea itself.
On all these shores there are echoes of past and future: of the flow of time, obliterating yet containing all that has gone before; of the sea’s eternal rhythms – the tides, the beat of surf, the pressing rivers of the currents – shaping, changing, dominating; of the stream of life, flowing as inexorably as any ocean current, from past to unknown future. For as the shore configuration changes in the flow of time, the pattern of life changes, never static, never quite the same from year to year. Whenever the sea builds a new coast, waves of living creatures surge against it, seeking a foothold, establishing their colonies. And some come to perceive life as a force tangible as any of the physical realities of the sea, a force strong and purposeful, as incapable of being crushed or diverted from its ends as the rising tide.
Contemplating the teeming life of the shore, we have an uneasy sense of the communication of some universal truth that lies just beyond our grasp. What is the message signalled by the hordes of diatoms, flashing their microscopic lights in the night sea? What truth is expressed by the legions of barnacles, whitening the rocks with their habitations, each small creature within finding the necessities of its existence in the sweep of the surf? And what is the meaning of so tiny a being as the transparent wisp of protoplasm that is a sea lace, existing for some reason inscrutable to us – a reason that demands its presence by the trillion amid the rocks and weeds of the shore? The meaning haunts and ever eludes us, and in its very pursuit we approach the ultimate mystery of life itself.”
