Editors Note: Seems kind of strange to me this guy suffers a heart attack right at that moment. This seems to be one of the favorite ways of getting rid of people that “talk to much” that or suicide. Is this a message to G. Edward Griffin to shut up? One has to wonder….
(The Philadelphia Inquirer – 6/26/09) – Irv Homer, longtime talk-show host – From 1975 till 2000, Philadelphia’s daily pulse – politics, food, sports – thumped on WWDB-FM, and Irv Homer reigned as the marquee player on a team of talkers every bit as quirky as the city they discussed.
The former bartender from Wissinoming, who died Wednesday night of an apparent heart attack, was the station’s curmudgeon, so quick with a contrarian view that he picked up the sobriquet “Evil Irv.”
Mr. Homer, 85, who moved on to WBCB-AM (1490) and ran his own Internet station, became ill at Eastern University in St. Davids while introducing the author G. Edward Griffin to an audience of nearly 300.
Though he was briefly revived, his son Ronn said, he was pronounced dead at Bryn Mawr Hospital.
Mr. Homer had worked an air shift that afternoon. Merrill Reese, WBCB general manager and the voice of the Eagles, said Mr. Homer “was full of vigor and had the sharpness of somebody half his age.”
Talk-show host and Inquirer columnist Michael Smerconish of WPHT (1210) called Mr. Homer’s death “the passing of an era, an era of personality.”
“It’s a shame. It used to be that personality was king in this business, and he had plenty of that. Unfortunately, personality has been replaced by ideology.
“Irv was not a guy who would ever fit neatly into one of the ideological boxes you see on cable TV every night. He was not a classic liberal nor conservative. He was often very libertarian. He was an engaging individual who took things an issue at a time.”
District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, whose late husband, Frank Ford, worked with Mr. Homer, called him “the voice of the blue-collar worker.”
He was not afraid to shake up an audience, no matter how tender its ears. Ronn Homer recalled how his father shook up his senior-class assembly at Lincoln High School. “The first thing he said was, ‘I’m glad everyone from Washington High could make it here.’ There was all this commotion, then he said: ‘I wanted to make sure everyone’s on their toes.’ ”
Mr. Homer, an Army Air Corps bomber pilot during World War II who invested in taprooms after the war, was a paperhanger by day and a bartender at night. “He was a big man who took care of the patrons,” his son said.
His father got into radio by accident. In the late 1960s, his neighbor Marvin Burak bought time on WXUR in Media, owned by the Rev. Carl McIntire, a right-wing evangelist. Burak started a political show called Right Center Left and played the “left” role, while J.A. Parker, later an official in the Reagan administration, was the “right.” Mr. Homer was the centrist.
Mr. Homer, who moved on to WEEZ in Chester before joining WWDB, was a frequent guest on television and had a long association as a panelist on WPVI’s news-talk show, Inside Story.
Reese met Mr. Homer in the 1970s when Mr. Homer was a guest on a Channel 29 show called News Probe. A frequent guest was Ira Einhorn, later convicted of killing his girlfriend Holly Maddux.
Reese said that when WWDB was silenced in 2000, “I immediately picked up the phone and told him, ‘If you need a place to land, you can come to WBCB.’ ”
Mr. Homer loved politics, and ran for vice president as a Libertarian in 1972. He gleefully thrust himself into government squabbles in the 1970s. While fellow WWDB host Ford despised Mayor Frank L. Rizzo, Rizzo was comfortable going on Mr. Homer’s show.
“He was one of my father’s biggest supporters on the radio,” said the late mayor’s son, Councilman Frank Rizzo, who hosted Rizzo to the Rescue with Mr. Homer in the late 1990s on WWDB. “Some people thought he was liberal, and in the next breath people thought he was conservative. Irv was what he needed to be at the moment. . . . He could be very streetwise, and at the same time you’d think he went to Harvard.”
Former Mayor John Street, whose feud in City Council in the late 1970s with then-colleague Franny Rafferty was mediated by Mr. Homer, said: “Irv was an original. He was sincere, candid to a fault and much smarter than his ‘down-home’ style might suggest to those who did not know him like we who were the subject of his conversation. I liked him because he was generous with his celebrity status, genuine in his love for our city and lastly he was real, not slick. We could use a few more like Irv.”
Mr. Homer was an early supporter of the Sunshine Foundation, a Bucks County organization that offers trips and help to critically ill children and their families. He and founder Bill Sample enjoyed breakfast nearly every morning at the Suburban Diner near Mr. Homer’s Feasterville home.
What many did not realize was that Mr. Homer and his wife of 53 years, Francine, whom friends called Queenie, had lost a son, Robert, to leukemia at age 7 in 1961.
Queenie Homer died of cancer in 2007. The Homers’ third son, Garry, was estranged from his father; Ronn Homer declined to discuss the matter.
Reese said Mr. Homer had helped the station’s interns and younger staffers. “He was like everyone’s grandfather.”
To the psychic Valerie Morrison, whom Mr. Homer mentored and who cohosted the Internet show, Mr. Homer was like a father. He “taught me to come out of my shell. When people would criticize, he used to say, ‘Oh, come on, kid. Roll with the punches.’ He made me feel like a pro.”
Sid Mark, whose Frank Sinatra show on WWDB followed Mr. Homer’s for three years, recalled how Mr. Homer, a car enthusiast, had asked management for his own parking space. Informed that the station did not own the lot, Mr. Homer erected his own sign and reserved himself a space.
Besides his sons, Mr. Homer is survived by his companion, Shirley Churr Guercio.
Services will be held at 11 a.m. Sunday at Joseph Levine & Son Memorial Chapel, 4737 Street Rd., Trevose.
Memorial donations may be made to the Sunshine Foundation, 1041 Mill Creek Dr., Feasterville, Pa. 19053.
(Anchorage Daily News – 7/14/09) IT’S NOT OIL: No one in the area can recall seeing anything like it before.
Something big and strange is floating through the Chukchi Sea between Wainwright and Barrow.
Hunters from Wainwright first started noticing the stuff sometime probably early last week. It’s thick and dark and “gooey” and is drifting for miles in the cold Arctic waters, according to Gordon Brower with the North Slope Borough’s Planning and Community Services Department.
Brower and other borough officials, joined by the U.S. Coast Guard, flew out to Wainwright to investigate. The agencies found “globs” of the stuff floating miles offshore Friday and collected samples for testing.
Later, Brower said, the North Slope team in a borough helicopter spotted a long strand of the stuff and followed it for about 15 miles, shooting video from the air.
The next day the floating substance arrived offshore from Barrow, about 90 miles east of Wainwright, and borough officials went out in boats, collected more samples and sent them off for testing too.
Nobody knows for sure what the gunk is, but Petty Officer 1st Class Terry Hasenauer says the Coast Guard is sure what it is not.
“It’s certainly biological,” Hasenauer said. “It’s definitely not an oil product of any kind. It has no characteristics of an oil, or a hazardous substance, for that matter.
“It’s definitely, by the smell and the makeup of it, it’s some sort of naturally occurring organic or otherwise marine organism.”
Something else: No one in Barrow or Wainwright can remember seeing anything like this before, Brower said.
“That’s one of the reasons we went out, because in recent history I don’t think we’ve seen anything like this,” he said. “Maybe inside lakes or in stagnant water or something, but not (in the ocean) that we could recall …
“If it was something we’d seen before, we’d be able to say something about it. But we haven’t …which prompted concerns from the local hunters and whaling captains.”
The stuff is “gooey” and looks dark against the bright white ice floating in the Arctic Ocean, Brower said.
“It’s pitch black when it hits ice and it kind of discolors the ice and hangs off of it,” Brower said. He saw some jellyfish tangled up in the stuff, and someone turned in what was left of a dead goose — just bones and feathers — to the borough’s wildlife department.
“It kind of has an odor; I can’t describe it,” he said.
Hasenauer said he hasn’t heard any reports of waterfowl or marine animals turning up.
Brower said it wouldn’t necessarily surprise him if the substance turns out to be some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon, but the borough is waiting until it gets the analysis back from the samples before officials say anything more than they’re not sure what it is.
“From the air it looks brownish with some sheen, but when you get close and put it up on the ice and in the bucket, it’s kind of blackish stuff … (and) has hairy strands on it.”
Hasenauer said the Coast Guard’s samples are being analyzed in Anchorage. Results may be back sometime next week, he said.
The two Coast Guard experts sent up to overfly the area with the borough said they saw nothing that resembled an oil slick, Hasenauer said.
“We brought back one sample of what they believe to be an algae,” he said, and a big algae bloom is one possibility.
“It’s textbook for us to consider algae because of all the false reports of oil spills we’ve had in the past. It’s one of the things that typically comes up” when a report turns out not to be an oil spill after all.
But, he said, “there’s all types of natural phenomena that it could be.”
Meanwhile, the brownish-blackish gunk is drifting along the coast to the northeast, Brower said.
“This stuff is moving with the current,” he said. “It’s now on beyond Barrow and probably going north at this point. And people are still encountering it out here off Barrow.”
For the most part, the mystery substance seems to have stayed away from shore.
“We did get some residents saying it was being pushed against the shoreline by ice in some areas,” Brower said, “but then we get another east wind and it gets pushed back out there.”
Find Don Hunter online at adn.com/contact/dhunter or call 257-4349.
(WIRED) International fingerpointing in the recent cyber attacks against U.S. and South Korean websites has widened to include Great Britain, as researchers examining the attacks trace them to a server in the United Kingdom.
But the British company that owns the server says it, in turn, traced the attacks to a VPN connection originating in Miami, Florida.
With hawks in Congress and the press urging President Barack Obama to launch an all-out cyber war in retaliation for the website outages, things are looking bad for the Sunshine State. Though it should be noted that the Miami connection was likely just another proxy used by the hacker, who could be based in the U.S. or anywhere else.
Researchers at Bkis Security in Hanoi, who reported findings about the British server on their company’s blog, say that the denial-of-service attacks that struck more than three dozen government and commercial sites last week were launched from more than 166,000 computers in 74 countries controlled by a server in the UK. The IP range for the server is 195.90.118.xxx, which is registered to Global Digital Broadcast, which streams digital TV content from Latin America to consumers.
A company representative was unavailable for comment.
But in a July 14 press release, the company indicated that it had traced the attacks to a VPN connection from Miami controlled by Digital Latin America, a Buenos Aires-based company with a facility in Florida that provides technical services to providers of digital content.
According to the post, the Digital Latin America connection was set up as “an exploit finder,” presumably used by the botnet herder to rustle up vulnerable computers to use in the attack.
A spokeswoman for Digital Latin America confirmed that Global Digital Broadcast contacted the company Tuesday morning about the role its network may have played in the attacks. Amaya Ariztoy, general counsel for Digital Latin America, said that the server allegedly used for the attack provides streaming services to a third company that provides digital content, which in turn transferred the signal to Global Digital Broadcast in the UK.
“We’re investigating and cooperating with authorities,” Ariztoy said, while noting that the company had not yet been contacted by any authorities investigating the issue.
Bkis, which is a member of Vietnam’s Computer Emergency Response Team, was asked to investigate the attacks by South Korea’s Computer Emergency Response Team.
They found that zombie computers used in the cyber attacks were located around the world, primarily in South Korea, the United States, China and Japan, and were part of eight different botnets. U.S. researchers had previously estimated that systems used in the attack numbered around 60,000.
The Bkis researchers found that every three minutes the infected computers randomly contacted one of eight servers to receive instructions. After gaining control of two of the botnet command and control servers, the researchers examined their logs and discovered that they were in turn contacting the master server in the UK, which was running a Microsoft Windows operating system.
[Updated with response from Digital Latin America.]
(USA Today) Evidence has surfaced that the denial-of-service attacks that crippled dozens of U.S. and South Korean web sites last week may not have been perpetrated by North Korea, as widely surmised.
Bkis Security has just disclosed analysis showing that 166,908 botted PCs from 74 countries were used in the attacks. Commands were routed through eight control servers, tied into a master server located in the United Kingdom and running the Windows Server 2003 operating system, says Bkis research director Nguyen Minh Duc.
Hanoi-based Bkis analyzed samples of the attack code at the behest of APCERT, the Korean Computer Emergency Response Team. It found bots carrying out the attacks located South Korea, the United States, China, Japan, Canada, Australia and 68 other nations. Each bot randomly connected every three minutes to one of the eight control servers to receive instructions on which website to attack next. The control servers, in turn, received commands routed through the master server.
“Having located the attacking source in the UK, we believe it is completely possible to find the hacker,” says Minh Duc. “This depends on the US and South Korean governments.” He said Bkis has turned over its findings to authorities in both nations.
Just because the master server was located in the UK doesn’t mean the attackers were Brits. The human controller could be sitting at a keyboard anywhere in the world. However, Jayson E. Street, a cyber warfare consultant at security firm Netragard, says the attacks were more likely the work of a nation-state or perhaps mercenary hacker testing attack techniques, while purposely deflecting blame to North Korea.
A big cyberattack requires computer expertise. “North Korea doesn’t have the sophistication to conduct an attack like this,” says Street.
Another sign that the true attackers aren’t North Koreans, and really don’t want to be identified: some of the bots used in the attacks have begun to self destruct. Symantec has identified several hundred attack bots that received a second set of instructions. These machines began to erase all work files associated with office, business and development applications, says Vincent Weafer, vice president of Symantec Security Response. And the instructions also called for destroying the Master Boot program so as to render the PC inoperable the next time the user reboots.
What all that means is that some of the botted PCs carrying out the denial of service attacks subsequently began to wipe out all application files — and ultimately self destructed. “It’s kind of hard to do forensics on a machine that’s been wiped,” says Street.
July 12, 2009 – (Kyodo News)
Kono wants denials to end on U.S. accord
The Foreign Ministry kept the English-language version of a 1960 secret accord with Washington that covers the handling of U.S. nuclear weapons in Japan, an unnamed former senior ministry official said Saturday.
|Secret pact?: Ex-Foreign Minister Aiichiro Fujiyama and U.S. Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II are said to have signed a secret nuclear pact in 1960. KYODO PHOTO|
Japan has maintained there is no such pact, but Taro Kono, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, said Friday he intends to demand the government admit its existence and said a probe is in the works.
The document had been placed under the strict supervision at the North American Affairs Bureau and Treaties Bureau, which is now the International Legal Affairs Bureau, said the former director general of the Treaties Bureau, who declined to be named. He also suggested the document may have been destroyed because of the 2001 disclosure law.
This is the first revelation of the existence at the ministry of the English-version of the bilateral pact signed on Jan. 6, 1960, by then Foreign Minister Aiichiro Fujiyama and U.S. Ambassador to Japan Douglas MacArthur II.
Former Vice Foreign Minister Ryohei Murata has already confirmed the existence of a Japanese-version of the document at the ministry.
Murata broke his silence when he told media organizations late last month that it was a “secret duty” of vice ministers to inform foreign ministers of the accord.
Under the deal, which the two countries agreed on in revising the Japan-U.S. security treaty in 1960, Tokyo grants tacit approval for U.S. military aircraft and vessels carrying nuclear weapons to stop in Japan, although the treaty stipulates the need for Washington to hold prior consultations with Tokyo before such arms come into the country.
Murata served in the Foreign Ministry’s top bureaucratic post from 1987 to 1989.
U.S. diplomatic documents declassified in the late 1990s substantiate the existence of the pact. However, Japan has denied the agreement exists.
The government upholds the “three nonnuclear principles” of not possessing, producing or allowing atomic weapons on its territory.
According to the unnamed ex-official, the ministry has possession of volumes of documents related to the secret bilateral nuclear pact, and the Treaties Bureau has a list of the documents on file.
He also heard the ministry started destroying documents pertaining to nuclear-related secrets before the information disclosure law was enacted in April 2001.
Kono, of the Liberal Democratic Party, demanded the state come clean after meeting Murata Friday in Kyoto.
“I have judged from the testimony of Mr. Murata that there was a secret accord,” Kono said. “The Foreign Affairs Committee will not tolerate the government repeating that there was no secret deal.”
Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone has said: “There was no secret accord. We do not intend to probe this again.”
05 April 2009 – (All News Web)
It appears that an official UFO cover-up has swung well into action with earlier regional news reports reporting the fact that the object was declared a UFO by the Japanese Department of Defence while later ones are reporting that the alarm was merely a ‘false positive’ and carefully avoiding any mention of UFOs.
Unsurprisingly, no western reports mention that the object that the radars picked up was declared a UFO by the defence authorities.
If any aliens are reading this article they should be alerted to how dangerous their semi-secret joy flights can be. If they are keeping themselves covert for our sakes perhaps they should re-consider and come out in the open; even if our ‘representatives’ would rather they didn’t.
(World Socialist Site – 6/26/09) The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.
According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.
The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.
Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”
Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.
Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”
He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.
What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?
The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.
But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.
Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.
The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.
The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.
However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.
He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.
The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.
Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.
After landing in Los Angeles in January of 2000, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were met by Omar al-Bayoumi, an employee of the Saudi civil aviation authority. US investigators have concluded that al-Bayoumi was a Saudi intelligence agent.
Al-Bayoumi invited the pair to move to San Diego, where he found them an apartment, provided them with money and helped enroll them in flight school.
It has been reported that al-Bayoumi served as a conduit for thousands of dollars in funding for the future hijackers sent by Princess Haifa, the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US and a close confidante of the Bush family.
Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar lived openly in the US, one of them even having his name listed in the telephone directory.
Within months, al-Hazmi moved into the home of Abdussattar Shaikh, a retired professor at San Diego State University. Shaikh was on the FBI payroll, charged with monitoring the activities of Islamist groups in the San Diego region.
In his book, Graham wrote that the FBI concealed from the joint congressional committee the fact that its paid informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, had established a close personal relationship with the two hijackers.
When the committee staff discovered Shaikh’s role and the committee issued a subpoena to question him under oath, the FBI and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to serve the subpoena. Graham said that a senior FBI official wrote to him and the Republican co-chair of the joint committee declaring that the administration would neither allow the FBI to serve a subpoena on Shaikh nor allow the committee staff to interview him.
Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”
Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.
In his book, Graham himself posed the question of why the congressional committee was denied access to the San Diego FBI informant. After offering several possible answers, he suggested in deliberately obscure language a “far more damning possibility”—“perhaps the informant did know something about the plot that would be even more damaging were it revealed, and that this is what the FBI is trying to conceal.”
Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.
Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?
That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.
Editors Note: Something about this smells really bad to me – Feels like a setup… Artificial Alien Threat to bring us in to the New World Order with a One World Religion? Check the report from Iron Mountain for plans on this as well as Project Bluebeam. They gotta cover all their bases… there is a reason we have been bombarded with information about UFOs in movies, television, newspapers you name it. These things do not happen by accident and the quicker everyone realizes this the better it will be for all of us. Remember that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong were Masons!!!!
(Examiner.com) Commentary: The planned October 9, 2009 bombing of the moon by a NASA orbiter that will bomb the moon with a 2-ton kinetic weapon to create a 5 mile wide deep crater as an alleged water-seeking and lunar colonization experiment, is contrary to space law prohibiting environmental modification of celestial bodies. The NASA moon bombing, a component of the LCROSS mission, may also trigger conflict with known extraterrestrial civilizations on the moon as reported on the moon in witnessed statements by U.S. astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, and in witnessed statements to NSA (National Security Agency) photos and documents regarding an extraterrestrial base on the dark side of the moon.
If the true intent of the LCROSS mission moon bombing is a hostile act by NASA against known extraterrestrial civilizations and settlements on the moon, then NASA and by extension the U.S. government are guilty of aggressive war which is the most serious of war crimes under the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions, to which the U.S. is subject. The U.N. Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. has ratified, requires that “ The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.” 98 nations have ratified and 125 nations have signed the U.N. Outer Space Treaty.
Disclosure Project Talking About Bases On Dark Side of Moon
Moon Landing Hoax – note the wires!
NASA’s LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) mission
The NASA LCROSS (Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite) mission, which departed on Earth on June 18, 2009. According to one report, “Flying over the moon’s southern hemisphere, LCROSS will use its high-precision instruments, as well as close-up images of the terrain gathered by the lunar orbiter, to seek out a crater just shallow enough and dark enough to be a prime bombing target.
“There, acting as what the Ames team calls its “shepherding spacecraft,” LCROSS will guide an empty Centaur rocket weighing two tons toward its target. The rocket will crash into the crater at 5,600 mph, creating a new crater – perhaps as large as 5 miles wide. The crash is scheduled to occur Oct. 9.”
The two-ton Centaur rocket qualifies as a space-based kinetic weapon. The reason alleged by NASA for the mission is that “the [LCROSS} probes will map possible landing sites and search for water sources that could be used by a future lunar colony.”
According to NASA, “The Mission Objectives of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) include confirming the presence or absence of water ice in a permanently shadowed crater at the Moon’s South Pole. The identification of water is very important to the future of human activities on the Moon. LCROSS will excavate the permanently dark floor of one of the Moon’s polar craters with two heavy impactors in 2009 to test the theory that ancient ice lies buried there. The impact will eject material from the crater’s surface to create a plume that specialized instruments will be able to analyze for the presence of water (ice and vapor), hydrocarbons and hydrated materials.”
NASA: LCROSS launch of luner orbiter, June 18, 2009
U.S. astronauts, NASA employees, Soviet scientists, NSA confirm the extraterrestrial presence on the moon
There are confirmed reports of an extraterrestrial presence on the moon, both from U.S. astronauts who have visited the moon, from NASA employees, from Soviet scientists and observers of the NASA moon visits, and from witnessed NSA (National Security Agency) reports on a moon based on the far side of the moon.
One report states that, “In a 2006 television documentary, ‘Apollo 11: The Untold Story,’ Buzz Aldrin admitted for the first time publicly that the astronauts saw UFOs on their trip to the Moon, but they were not allowed to discuss this information on the live audio feed to NASA. He stated that he felt it would have caused a ‘panic.’”
Other research on witnessed corroboration of U.S. astronaut sightings of an extraterrestrial presence on the Moon states, “According to hitherto unconfirmed reports, both Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin saw UFOs shortly after their historic landing on the Moon in Apollo 11 on 21 July 1969. I remember hearing one of the astronauts refer to a “light” in or on a carter during the television transmission, followed by a request from mission control for further information. Nothing more was heard.”
“According to a former NASA employee Otto Binder, unnamed radio hams with their own VHF receiving facilities that bypassed NASA’s broadcasting outlets picked up the following exchange:
“NASA: What’s there? Mission Control calling Apollo 11…
“Apollo: These ‘Babies’ are huge, Sir! Enormous! OH MY GOD! You wouldn’t believe it! I’m telling you there are other spacecraft out there, lined up on the far side of the crater edge! They’re on the Moon watching us!
“In 1979, Maurice Chatelain, former chief of NASA Communications Systems confirmed that Armstrong had indeed reported seeing two UFOs on the rim of a crater. ‘The encounter was common knowledge in NASA,’ he revealed, ‘but nobody has talked about it until now.’
“Soviet scientists were allegedly the first to confirm the incident. ‘According to our information, the encounter was reported immediately after the landing of the module,’ said Dr. Vladimir Azhazha, a physicist and Professor of Mathematics at Moscow University. ‘Neil Armstrong relayed the message to Mission Control that two large, mysterious objects were watching them after having landed near the moon module. But his message was never heard by the public-because NASA censored it.’
“According to another Soviet scientist, Dr. Aleksandr Kazantsev, Buzz Aldrin took color movie film of the UFOs from inside the module, and continued filming them after he and Armstrong went outside. Dr. Azhazha claims that the UFOs departed minutes after the astronauts came out on to the lunar surface.
“Maurice Chatelain also confirmed that Apollo 11’s radio transmissions were interrupted on several occasions in order to hide the news from the public. Before dismissing Chatelain’s sensational claims, it is worth noting his impressive background in the aerospace industry and space program. His first job after moving from France was as an electronics engineer with Convair, specializing in telecommunications, telemetry, and radar. In 1959 he was in charge of an electromagnetic research group, developing new radar and telecommunications systems for Ryan. One of his eleven patents was an automatic flights to the Moon. Later, at North American Aviation, Chatelain was offered the job of designing and building the Apollo communications and data-processing systems.
“Chatelain claims that ‘all Apollo and Gemini flights were followed, both at a distance and sometimes also quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin-flying saucers, or UFOs, if you want to call them by that name. Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who then ordered absolute silence.’ He goes on to say:
“I think that Walter Schirra aboard Mercury 8 was the first of the astronauts to use the code name ‘Santa Claus’ to indicate the presence of flying saucers next to space capsules. However, his announcements were barely noticed by the general public.
“It was a little different when James Lovell on board the Apollo 8 command module came out from behind the moon and said for everybody to hear:
‘PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS.’
“Even though this happened on Christmas Day 1968, many people sensed a hidden meaning in those words.”
NASA’s Maurice Chatelain, moon whistleblower
NSA photos, documents of an extraterrestrial base on the dark side of the moon
Former USAF U.S. Sgt. Karl Wolfe, a Disclosure Project witness, describes photos, documents of extraterrestrial bases on the dark side of the moon that he witnessed at the NSA (National Security Agency), in the 1960s. One report states that “Sgt Wolfe was working with Tactical Air Command at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia in 1965. There, he was assigned to the lunar orbital project with the National Security Agency where he met an airman who confided in him that they had discovered bases in the far side of the moon.”
Sgt Wolfe’s Disclosure Project testimony, in which he states that he is willing to testify under oath before the U.S. Congress, can be seen in the video below.
One account states, “The airman told him (Wolfe) that all of the NASA photographs were sent to Langley, where they were enhanced, and eventually made into photographs to be sent to and studied by the different branches of the military. He was also told why security was of the utmost importance at the lab on this particular day-recent enhanced imagery had clearly shown structures on the far side of the Moon. These structures were definitely not created by natural forces-they were made by intelligent beings.
“’We discovered,’ the airman said, ‘a base on the back side of the Moon.’
Wolfe was in no way prepared for what he had just been told. When he airman saw Wolfe nearly shaking in disbelief, he reiterated:
“’Yes, a base on the dark side of the Moon.’
“Although Wolfe had not actually been told that some alien intelligence had made the aforementioned structures, who else could it have been? Although Russia had flown unmanned vessels around to the far side, no landing had been made, and the resources and technology needed to build a station there were far beyond that of Russia at the time. Had they made a landing on the Moon, the entire world would have known about it. And Wolfe knew America was still years from a Moon landing.
“His anxiety reached a new level. He was looking at, and being told about, something that he should not have seen or known about. He was actually afraid of being arrested and a court martial. He only wanted to finish his job, and get out of there, and forget the whole incident. He would finish the repair he was called to do, but he could never forget what he had seen that day at Langley. He would tell not a soul for 30 years.
“His release from the military also required that he not leave the United States for five years. This was a condition of his security status. He also was sworn to not reveal anything he had seen while performing his duties in the military. Wolfe would eventually put a report on what he had seen on video, which is now available on the Internet. There have also been several ex-NASA employees who have come forward telling of their experiences in air brushing structures out of NASA photographs of the Moon.”
NASA’s lunar bombing violates space law and must be stopped
NASA’s use of a 2-ton empty Centaur rocket as a kinetic weapon violates space law in multiple ways and must be stopped, in flight or in lunar orbit, which the LCROSS lunar orbiter reaches on Tuesday June 23, 2009.
The bombing of the moon with a kinetic weapon to create a 5 mile crater is a per se violation of the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. has ratified, irrespective of its being designed as part of an experiment related to lunar colonization.
The U.N. Outer Space Treaty (Article III) provides that “States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations.”
The Moon Treaty (Agreement Governing The Activities Of States On The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies (1979)) addresses and bans the specific activity bombing of the moon carried out unilaterally by the U.S. The Moon Treaty prohibits disruption of the environment of the Moon. The LCROSS bombing constitutes a disruption of the delicate balance of the lunar ecology. Article 7 of the Moon Treaty states:
Article 7 of the Moon Treaty
“1. In exploring and using the moon, States Parties shall take measures to
prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment whether
by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its harmful
contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental matter or
otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully
affecting the environment of the earth through the introduction of
extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.
“2. States Parties shall inform the Secretary-General of the United
Nations of the measures being adopted by them in accordance with
paragraph 1 of this article and shall also, to the maximum extent
feasible, notify him in advance of all placements by them of radio-active
materials on the moon and of the purposes of such placements.
“3. States Parties shall report to other States Parties and to the
Secretary-General concerning areas of the moon having special scientific
interest in order that, without prejudice to the rights of other States
Parties, consideration may be given to the designation of such areas as
international scientific preserves for which special protective
arrangements are to be agreed upon in consultation with the competent
bodies of the United Nations.”
Although the U.S. has not ratified the Moon Treaty, 13 nations have, and it can be construed as a relevant international standard of what constitutes “international law” under the U.N. Outer Space Treaty.
Is NASA’s LCROSS bombing of the moon a camouflaged attack or attempt to impose moon sovereignty by the U.S.?
There is witnessed evidence, through the testimony of UASF SGT Karl Wolfe and through the statements of U.S. astronauts, NASA employees, former Soviet scientists that the U.S., and its agencies NASA and the NSA has had scientific evidence that the moon has extraterrestrial civilizations and present settlements on it for more than 40 years, since the 1960s.
The U.S. has not attempted any public, peaceful diplomacy with the civilizations on the moon. In fact, the U.S. has imposed an embargo on public knowledge that settlements and an extraterrestrial presence exist on the moon.
What is touted as a scientific experiment – the bombing of the moon – may in reality be an attempt to impose de facto U.S. sovereignty on the moon. Article II of the U.N. Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. has signed, states: “Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.”
Moreover, the LCROSS bombing of the moon may be an intentional hostile act by the U.S. (which has know the moon is inhabited for at least 40 years by other civilizations), a kind of “shot across the bow” to mark turf against other intelligent civilizations on the moon.
The U.N. Outer Space Treaty prohibits non-peaceful activities on the moon. Article IV states, “The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.”
NASA’s LCROSS bombing of the moon must be stopped, while the lunar orbiter is in orbit, before the bombing occurs on October 9, 2009.
(NaturalNews) In an effort to censor any online text that might inform consumers of the ability of natural products to protect consumers from H1N1 influenza A, the FDA is now sending out a round of warning letters, threatening to “take enforcement action… such as seizure or injunction for violations of the FFDC Act without further notice.”
“Firms that fail to take correction action,” the FDA warns, “may also be referred to the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations for possible criminal prosecution for violations of the FFDC Act and other federal laws.”
The message is crystal clear: No product may be described as protecting against or preventing H1N1 infections unless it is approved by the FDA. And which products has the FDA approved? Tamiflu (the anti-viral drug that most people will never have access to), and soon the new H1N1 vaccine that’s being manufactured at a cost of one billion dollars (paid to Big Pharma by the taxpayers). This vaccine, of course, will be utterly useless because H1N1 will undoubtedly mutate between now and the time the vaccine is ready, rendering the vaccine useless.
In other words, according to the tyrants at the FDA, the only products that may be marketed alongside the term “H1N1” are those products that either don’t work or aren’t available to most people. Anything that really works to prevent influenza infections — such as natural anti-virals, medicinal herbs, etc. — is banned from even mentioning H1N1 without the threat of being criminally prosecuted.
Note: I reveal the five most powerful natural anti-viral remedies in a free report you can read here: http://www.naturalnews.com/RR-FiveBestAnti-ViralProducts.html
Such are the operations of our U.S. Food and Drug Administration — a criminal organization that’s working hard to do what every criminal organization does: Eliminate the competition! As the defender of Big Pharma, the FDA is also the destroyer of knowledge that seeks to remove educational statements from the internet. Truth has nothing to do with it — it is verifiably true that anti-viral herbs, probiotics and other natural products help protect consumers from influenza — but the FDA cannot allow such statements to remain online for the simple fact that people might become informed. And that, it seems, would be a dangerous precedent.
If people were informed about the healing and protective powers of herbs, they would no longer remain enslaved by the medical establishment. Profits would be lost. Power would evaporate. This is why people can never be allowed to attain any real knowledge about herbs, superfoods or nutritional supplements. And the FDA will threaten people with imprisonment just to make sure they don’t dare publish knowledge that the FDA does not want the people to see.
Targeted by the FDA
Who is being attacked and threatened by the FDA? Lots of companies offering highly-effective natural remedies. You can see a list of some of the companies being targeted right here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/h1n1flu/
Byron Richards’ company Wellness Resources, a favorite target of the FDA (no doubt because Richards wrote a book attacking the FDA), is also targeted in this censorship campaign. You can see the FDA’s ridiculous complaint against his company here: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/h1n1flu/brand_list.cfm?brand=Wellness%20Resources&cat=Supplement
American Academy of Environmental Medicine Calls for Immediate Moratorium on All Genetically Modified Foods
(OpenEdNews 5/19/09) Today, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[i] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[ii]
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks-compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[iii] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[iv]
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color-from the normal pink to dark blue.[v] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[vi] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[vii] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[viii]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[ix]
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.
Food designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt-produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis-has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[x] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[xi],[xii]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[xiii] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[xiv]
GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”-all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[xv] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[xvi] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[xvii]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[xviii] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor-a known soy allergen,[xix]and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[xx] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[xxi] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[xxii]
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[xxiii]
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[xxiv] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[xxv]
Worst finding of all-GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[xxvi] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[xxvii] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[xxviii]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[xxix]
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood-but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[xxx]
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets-unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe-by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
Jeffrey M. Smith
[ii] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[iii] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform1 (2006): 4–9.
[iv] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[v] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[vi] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[vii] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[viii] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[ix] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[x] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predatorChrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[xi] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[xii] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[xiii] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[xiv] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[xv] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[xvi] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002. See Monsanto Rat Study.
[xvii] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56(23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[xviii] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[xix] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[xx] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,”Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[xxii] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[xxiii] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[xxiv] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[xxv] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002. See Monsanto Rat Study.
[xxvi] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
[xxviii] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[xxix] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[xxx] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25
(May 12, 2009 – CNSNews.com) – The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA), a part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), will pay $2.6 million in U.S. tax dollars to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job.
Dr. Xiaoming Li, the researcher conducting the program, is director of the Prevention Research Center at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.
The grant, made last November, refers to prostitutes as “female sex workers”–or FSW–and their handlers as “gatekeepers.”
“Previous studies in Asia and Africa and our own data from FSWs [female sex workers] in China suggest that the social norms and institutional policy within commercial sex venues as well as agents overseeing the FSWs (i.e., the ‘gatekeepers’, defined as persons who manage the establishments and/or sex workers) are potentially of great importance in influencing alcohol use and sexual behavior among establishment-based FSWs,” says the NIH grant abstract submitted by Dr. Li.
“Therefore, in this application, we propose to develop, implement, and evaluate a venue-based alcohol use and HIV risk reduction intervention focusing on both environmental and individual factors among venue-based FSWs in China,” says the abstract.
The research will take place in the southern Chinese province of Guangxi.
Guangxi is ranked third in HIV rate among Chna’s provinces–and is a place where the sex business is pervasive, Li said.
“The purpose of the project is to try and develop an intervention program targeting HIV risk and alcohol use,” Li told CNSNews.com. “So basically, it’s an alcohol and HIV risk reduction intervention project.”
The researcher outlined three components of the intervention program in the abstract for the project:
“(1) gatekeeper training with a focus on changing or enhancing the protective social norms and policy/practice at the establishment level; (2) FSW (female sex workers) training with a focus on the acquisition of communication skills (negotiating, limit setting) and behavioral skills (e.g., condom use skills, consistent condom use); and (3) semi-annual boosters to reinforce both social norms within establishments and individual skills,” wrote Li.
The doctor said the heart of the study involves “a community-based cluster randomized controlled trial among 100 commercial sex venues in Beihai, a costal tourist city in Guangxi.”
“We anticipate that the venue-based intervention program will be culturally appropriate, feasible, effective and sustainable in alcohol use and sexual risk reduction among FSWs,” says the NIH grant abstract.
Li said his study is being done in China rather than the U.S. because prostitution occurs with alcohol use in the United States like it does in China, Americans will be able to benefit from the project’s findings.
“We want to get some understanding of the fundamental role of alcohol use and HIV risk,” he said. “We use the population in China as our targeted population to look at the basic issues. I think the findings will benefit the American people, too.”
Li said minimal research has been conducted on the link between alcohol use and prostitution as it relates to HIV.
“Alcohol has been a part of the commerce of sex for many, many years. Unfortunately, both global-wise (and) in the United States, very few researchers are looking at the complex issue of the inter play between alcohol and the commerce of sex,” he told CNSNews.com.
The grant is one of several “international initiatives” sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.
Ralph Hingson, director of epidemiology and prevention research at NIAA, told CNSNews.com, “There are many Americans who travel to China each year and they should be made aware of the HIV problem.”
Hingson said that Americans will be able to apply the studies findings to the American situation because 1.2 million Americans are currently living with HIV.
Li’s research includes exploration, development, implementation and evaluation. Currently, the project stands at the exploration stage, which the doctor expects to last 18 months.
“The first phase is kind of an exploratory study just trying to get a good understanding of the phenomena in the population of female sex workers in China. The second phase is the program development,” the professor told CNSNews.com.
Phase two will be based on the first year of the study and on “field observations,” he added. The third phase will be the implementation and evaluation of the program.
“Prostitution is illegal in China but it exists in China,” Li told CNSNews.com, “but the Chinese government and the society’s attitude towards prostitution is complicated.”
According to Li, there may be as many as 10 million female prostitutes in China with the majority raging from teenagers to those in their 20s.
“We see a lot of governmental initiatives in China, like 100 percent condom distribution promotion programs, so they deliver condoms in those (prostitution) venues,” he added.
“The global literature indicates an important role of alcohol use in facilitating HIV/AIDS transmission risk in commercial sex venues where elevated alcohol use/abuse and sexual risk behaviors frequently co-occur,” Li wrote when introducing the project last November.
“We expect that the intervention will improve protective normative beliefs and institutional support regarding alcohol use and HIV protection,” he added.
The NIH proposal hypothesizes that the program will decrease “problem drinking and alcohol-related sexual risk” among prostitutes that participate.
“We hypothesize that the venue-based intervention will change and enhance the protective social norms and institutional policies at the establishment level and such enhancement, accompanied by individual skill training among FSWs, will demonstrate a sustainable effect within commercial sex establishments in decreasing problem drinking and alcohol-related sexual risk, increasing consistent and correct condom use, and reducing rates of HIV/STD infection among FSWs,” says the NIH abstract.