Health Science Communication for People Around the World/ Lääketiedemafia myrkytti lääkärit; suomennos mukana

Ihmisoikeusloukkauksista valittaminen
Ihmisoikeudet ovat saavuttaneet ainutlaatuisen aseman kansainvälisessä oikeudessa. Vaikka valtion rooli kansainvälisenä toimijana on edelleen kiistaton, valtio ei saa kohdella kansalaisiaan miten tahansa.

Olemme tottuneet ajattelemaan, että maailma koostuu valtioista, joilla on oikeus päättää siitä, mitä niiden rajojen sisäpuolella tapahtuu. Tätä oikeutta kutsutaan suvereniteetiksi. Kansainvälinen oikeus on perinteisesti ollut sopimusoikeutta: sopimuksia solmivat valtiot, jotka ovat vapaita rajoittamaan suvereniteettiaan jossain tietyssä asiassa vain siinä määrin kuin ne itse haluavat.

Universaalien ihmisoikeuksien ajatus rajoittaa valtioiden oikeutta toimia miten tahansa. Valtio ja sen oma oikeusjärjestelmä ovat edelleen ihmisoikeuksien ensisijainen turva, mutta toisaalta kansainväliset ihmisoikeudet ovat nimenomaan yksittäisten ihmisten oikeuksia valtion mahdollista vahingollista toimintaa vastaan. Ihmisoikeuksien lähtökohtana on se, että kaikilla maailman ihmisillä on samat perusoikeudet huolimatta siitä, minkä valtion alueella he asuvat.

Mahdollisuus vedota kansainväliseen oikeuteen silloin, kun oma valtio ei takaa ihmisoikeuksien toteutumista tai on niiden suurin rikkoja, on siten eräänlainen askel valtioiden muodostamasta maailmasta kohti ihmisten muodostamaa maailmaa.

Kansainvälinen tapaoikeus velvoittaa kaikkia. Osaa kansainvälisistä ihmisoikeuksista on alettu pitää kansainväliseen tapaoikeuteen kuuluvana. Tapaoikeudella tarkoitetaan yleismaailmallisesti päteviä oikeussääntöjä ja periaatteita, joiden katsotaan velvoittavan kaikkia valtioita riippumatta siitä, mihin kansainvälisiin sopimuksiin valtiot ovat sitoutuneet. Lisäksi osan ihmisoikeusnormeista katsotaan kuuluvan ehdottomaan kansainväliseen oikeuteen, jonka säännöistä ei sallita minkäänlaisia poikkeuksia. Esimerkiksi kansanmurhan kielto on tällainen ehdoton sääntö, eikä sen rikkomista siten voi mitenkään puolustella.

Tästä huolimatta on hyvä huomata, että valtio ja sen sisäinen oikeusjärjestelmä ovat edelleen ihmisoikeuksien ensisijaiset takaajat. Kansainväliset mekanismit otetaan käyttöön vasta, kun valtion sisäiset oikeustiet on kuljettu loppuun, ja kansainvälisen yhteisön vastuu ihmisoikeuksien toteutumisesta alkaa vasta silloin, kun valtio ei itse kykene huolehtimaan siitä.

Perustuu tekstiin Anttila: Ihmisoikeusnäkökulmia kehitysyhteistyöhön ja globalisaatioon.

Euroopan Unionin portaali:

Aloitteet ja tavoitteet
Edistääkseen ihmisoikeuksia kaikkialla maailmassa Euroopan unioni rahoittaa demokratiaa ja ihmisoikeuksia koskevaa eurooppalaista rahoitusvälinettä (EIDHR). Välineen budjetti vuosiksi 2007–2013 on 1,1 miljardia euroa. Sen puitteissa tarkastellaan ihmisoikeuksien kunnioittamista ja demokratian vahvistamista pitkällä aikavälillä ja keskitytään neljään alueeseen:

demokratisoitumisen, hyvän hallintotavan ja oikeusvaltioperiaatteen vahvistaminen (poliittisen moniarvoisuuden, tiedotusvälineiden vapauden ja toimivan oikeusjärjestelmän tukeminen)
kuolemanrangaistuksen poistaminen maista, joissa se on yhä voimassa
kidutuksen vastustaminen ennaltaehkäisevin keinoin (mm. poliisien koulutuksella ja valistuksella) ja rangaistuksin (kansainvälisten rikos- ja muiden tuomioistuinten perustaminen)
rasismin ja syrjinnän vastustaminen huolehtimalla poliittisten ja kansalaisoikeuksien kunnioittamisesta.
Välineestä rahoitetaan myös hankkeita, joilla edistetään sukupuolten tasa-arvoa ja lastensuojelua. Lisäksi sillä tuetaan EU:n ja muiden toiminnallaan ihmisoikeuksia puolustavien organisaatioiden – YK:n, Punaisen Ristin kansainvälisen komitean, Euroopan neuvoston ja Euroopan turvallisuus- ja yhteistyöjärjestön ETYJ:n – yhteisiä toimia.

SUOMEN PYSYVÄ EDUSTUSTO,
Yhdistyneet kansakunnat, New York

Permanent Mission of Finland to the UN
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 222,
New York, N.Y. 10017, U.S.A
Puh. +1-212-355 2100, sanomat.yke@formin.fi.English | Suomi

.EtusivuAjankohtaistaPysyvä edustustoSuomi YK:ssa
Konfliktien ehkäisy ja kriisinhallintaKestävä kehitys ja globaalit kehityskysymyksetIhmisoikeudet ja kansainvälinen oikeusYK:n uudistaminenLinkitPalauteYhteystiedot.Etusivu > Suomi YK:ssa > Ihmisoikeudet ja kansainvälinen oikeus
Ihmisoikeudet ja kansainvälinen oikeus

Suomen kansainvälisen ihmisoikeuspolitiikan tavoitteena on, osana laajan turvallisuuden edistämistä, vaikuttaa ihmisoikeustilanteen tosiasialliseen paranemiseen eri maissa. Perustana on YK:n yleismaailmallinen ihmisoikeusjulistus, ihmisoikeussopimukset ja kansainvälisiä velvoitteita antavat ihmisoikeusasiakirjat. Oikeuksien tasa-arvoinen toteutuminen etnisestä alkuperästä, sukupuolesta, iästä, uskonnosta, mielipiteestä, seksuaalisesta suuntautumisesta tai muusta vastaavasta syystä riippumatta on keskeinen lähtökohta. Ihmisoikeuksien turvaamiseksi edistetään demokratiaa ja vahvistetaan kansainvälistä oikeuden rakenteita ja prosesseja.

Suomi korostaa monenkeskisen yhteistyön, toimivien instituutioiden ja kansainvälisen oikeusjärjestyksen merkitystä maailmanlaajuisiin uhkiin vastaamisessa. Suomi tukee kansainvälisen oikeuden kehittämistä ja sen käytäntöönpanon keinojen vahvistamista YK:n toiminnassa.

Ihmisoikeudet
Suomen tavoitteena on ihmisoikeuksien valtavirtaistaminen kaikkeen YK-toimintaan. Tämä merkitsee ihmisoikeusperustaisen lähtökohdan toimeenpanoa kattavasti YK-järjestöjen sisäisessä ja välisessä toiminnassa. Suomi tukee ja pyrkii edistämään erityisesti naisten, lasten, vähemmistöjen, alkuperäiskansojen ja vammaisten henkilöiden oikeuksia. Suomi kiinnittää erityistä huomiota myös moniperustaisen syrjinnän ehkäisemiseen. Kansalaisoikeuksien ja poliittisten oikeuksien edistämisen ohella Suomella on myös aktiivinen rooli taloudellisten, sosiaalisten ja sivistyksellisten oikeuksien aktiivisena edistäjänä.

Suomen tavoitteena on kehittää YK:n ihmisoikeusneuvoston operatiivisuutta siten, että se pystyy puuttumaan ihmisoikeustilanteisiin milloin tahansa ja myös ilman asianomaisen valtion suostumusta. Samalla pyritään toteuttamaan uusia työskentelymuotoja ja varmistamaan, että neuvoston toiminta tuottaa lisäarvoa. Suomen tavoitteena on selkiyttää YK:n ihmisoikeusneuvoston ja YK:n yleiskokouksen III komitean rooleja maailmanlaajuisessa ihmisoikeuksien edistämisessä.

Suomi tukee YK:n ihmisoikeusvaltuutettua ja pitää tärkeänä valtuutetun itsenäisen aseman edelleen vahvistamista. Suomi tukee valtuutetun tavoitteita toiminnan painopisteen siirtämiseksi normien luomisesta niiden toimeenpanemiseen. Sääntömääräisten budjettivarojen osuutta valtuutetun toimistolle tulee merkittävästi lisätä.

Suomi pitää tärkeänä tavoitteena, että alueelliset ihmisoikeussopimukset osaltaan vievät pidemmälle YK:n ihmisoikeusnormistoa. Lisäksi on olennaista aktiivisesti muistuttaa alueellisten ihmisoikeuksia edistävien järjestöjen täydentävyydestä YK-normistoon nähden. Suomi tukee tiivistä yhteistyötä YK-järjestöjen ja alueellisten toimijoiden välillä ihmisoikeuskoulutuksen edistämisessä.

Ihmisarvoinen työ on keskeinen osa ihmisoikeuksia. Suomen tavoitteena on edistää työntekijöiden perusihmisoikeuksia (mm. lapsi- ja pakkotyön torjunta, yhdistymisvapaus, työelämän yhdenvertaisuus) sekä oikeutta turvallisiin ja terveellisiin työoloihin.

Kansainvälisen oikeuden vahvistaminen
Suomi osallistuu aktiivisesti kansainvälisen sopimusverkoston täydentämiseen ja vaikuttaa YK:n yleiskokouksen oikeudellisessa (VI) komiteassa, YK:n kansainvälisen oikeuden toimikunnassa ja erityisjärjestöissä tehtävään kansainvälisen oikeuden kehittämistyöhön. Suomi pyrkii myös edistämään sopimusten laajamittaista ratifioimista ja tehokasta täytäntöönpanoa. Monenkeskisten sopimusten integriteetin turvaamiseksi vastustetaan johdonmukaisesti muun muassa ihmisoikeussopimuksiin tehtyjä varaumia, jotka ovat sopimuksen päämäärän ja tarkoituksen vastaisia. Suomi tukee Kansainvälisen tuomioistuimen toimivallan laajempaa hyväksymistä ja sen toimintaedellytysten turvaamista samoin kuin muiden rauhanomaisten riitojenratkaisumenettelyiden vahvistamista.

Kaikkein vakavimpien kansainvälisten rikosten rankaisemattomuuden vähentäminen on Suomen YK-politiikan painopisteitä. Suomi tukee pysyvän Kansainvälisen rikostuomioistuimen (ICC) ja muiden kansainvälisten sotarikostuomioistuimien työtä. YK:n roolia ICC:n universaalisuuden edistämisessä tulee vahvistaa. Yhteistyötä ICC:n ja YK:n kesken tulee kehittää ja muiden kansainvälisten sotarikostuomioistuimien työ saattaa loppuun
asianmukaisella tavalla.

Oikeusvaltiokehitys ja hyvä hallinto
Oikeusvaltioperiaatteen edistäminen on yksi YK-politiikan painopistealue, joka koskee läpileikkaavasti monia toimintapolitiikkoja. Kriisien jälkeisessä yhteistyössä on keskityttävä erityisesti olojen vakauttamiseen rauhanprosessia tukemalla ja vahvistamalla kohdemaan oikeusjärjestelmää ml. rankaisemattomuuden torjumiseksi. YK:n sisäisten yhteistyö- ja koordinaatiomekanismien vahvistamista jatketaan.

Suomi on profiloitunut vahvasti YK:ssa oikeusvaltiotematiikan esille tuojana. Suomen tavoitteena on edelleen tukea ja vahvistaa YK:n oikeusvaltiokehitystyötä tukemalla järjestön sihteeristöön perustettua oikeusvaltiokoordinaatiosihteeristöä myös taloudellisesti ainakin alkuvaiheessa. YK:n oikeusvaltiotyön parempi sisäinen koordinaatio ja hyvä yhteistyö muiden toimijoiden kanssa nähdään tärkeäksi tavoitteeksi niin päämaja- kuin erityisesti kenttätasolla. Oikeusvaltiokehityksen huomioiminen erityisesti rauhanrakentamiskomission ja - rahaston työssä nähdään tärkeäksi. Siirtymävaiheen oikeuden mekanismit ja oikeusvaltion vahvistaminen ovat Suomen näkemyksen mukaan keskeisiä kestävän rauhan ja kehityksen edellytyksiä. Tukea YK:n sisäisten yhteistyö- ja koordinaatiomekanismien vahvistamiselle tulee jatkaa.

Suomen on luonteva toimia aktiivisesti hyvän hallinnon edistämisessä ja korruption vastaisessa työssä. Suomi tukee YK:n korruption vastaisen yleissopimuksen seurantamekanismin kehittämistä ja toimeenpanoa.

Mitä olette mieltä, pitäiskö heitin/meitin kumminkin siivota oma piha ensin vapaamuurareista virkakunnassa ja muusta vastaavasta sälästä?

By: Congressman Ron Paul - House of Representatives

The other day, I made a huge "gaffe" on national TV: I told the truth about the crimes of the U.S. government.

As you can imagine, the ceiling fell in, and a couple of walls too. Congressman are supposed to support the government, I was told. Oh, it's okay to criticize around the edges, but there are certain subjects a member of the House of Representatives is not supposed to bring up. But I touched the real "third-rail" of American politics, and the sparks sure flew.

I was interviewed on C-SPAN's morning "Washington Journal," and I used the opportunity, as I do all such media appearances, to point out how many of our liberties have been stolen by the federal government. We must take them back. The Constitution, after all, has a very limited role for Washington, D.C.

If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no Nafta, Gatt, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; and no income tax. We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited.

That system is called liberty. It's what the Founding Fathers gave us. Under liberty, we built the greatest, freest, most prosperous, most decent country on earth. It's no coincidence that the monstrous growth of the federal government has been accompanied by a sickening decline in living standards and moral standards. The feds want us to be hamsters on a treadmill--working hard, all day long, to pay high taxes, but otherwise entirely docile and controlled. The huge, expensive, and out-of-control leviathan that we call the federal government wants to run every single aspect of our lives.

Well, I'm sorry, but that's not America. It's not what the Founders gave us. It's not the country you believe in. It's not the country I believe in. So, on that TV interview, I emphasized not only the attacks on our property, but also the decline of our civil liberties, at the hands of the federal police. There are not supposed to be any federal police, according to the Constitution.

Then I really went over the line. I talked about the Waco massacre. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno claim those 81 church members, including 19 children, burned down their own church and killed themselves, and good riddance. So they put few survivors on trial, and threw them in prison for 40 years.

We're not supposed to remember that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms--talk about an unconstitutional agency--rather than arrest David Koresh on his regular morning jog, called in the TV stations for big publicity bonanza, and sent a swat team in black masks and black uniforms to break down his front door, guns blazing. They also sent in a helicopter gunship, to shoot at the roof of a church full of innocents.

The Branch Davidians resisted, and after a heartless siege of almost two months, and after cutting off food, water, and electricity, and playing horrible rock and roll through huge speakers 24 hours a day, the feds sent in the tanks to crush the walls of the church, and inject poisonous CS gas.

Now, CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on Chemical Warfare. The U.S. could not use it in a war. But it could and did use it against American civilians.

After the tanks did their work on the church, the place burst into flame, and all 81 people--men, women, children, and babies - were incinerated in a screaming horror. Did some feds set the fire? Did the flammable CS gas ignite, since without electricity, the parishioners were using lanterns? Did a tank knock over a lantern, striking one of the bales of hay being used against the thin walls as a "defense" against bullets? Or did the Davidians, as Clinton and Reno claim, kill themselves?

A new documentary- -Waco: The Rules of Engagement- may show, through FLIR infrared photography, FBI snipers killing the Davidians by shooting through the back of the church, where no media cameras were allowed. This film won a prize at the famed Sundance Film Festival. It was made by people who took the government's side, until they investigated.

Whatever the truth, there's no question that an irresponsible federal government has innocent blood on its hands, and not only from Waco. And the refusal of corrupt and perverse liberals to admit it means nothing.

In my rencent interview, in answer to a caller's question, I pointed out that Waco, and the federal murders at Ruby Ridge- especially the FBI sniper's shot that blasted apart the head of a young mother holding her baby- caused many Americans to live in fear of federal power. Then I uttered the sentiment that caused the media hysteria: I said that a lot of Americans fear that they too might be attacked by federal swat teams for exercising their constitutional rights, or merely for wanting to be left alone.

Whoa! You've never seen anything like it. For days, in an all-out assault, I was attacked by Democrats, unions, big business, establishment Republicans, and- of course- the media, in Washington and my home state of Texas. Newspapers foamed at the mouth, calling me a "right-wing extremist." (Say, isn't that what George III called Thomas Jefferson?)

I was even blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing! And by the way, I don't believe we've gotten the full truth on that either. All my many opponents were outraged that a Congressman would criticize big government. "If you don't like Washington, resign!" said a typical big-city newspaper editorial.

But the media, as usual, were all wet. (Do they ever get anything right?) The average Congressman may go to Washington to wallow in power, and line his pockets with a big lobbying job for a special interest (so he can keep ripping-off the taxpayers). But that's not why I'm in Congress. It's not why I left my medical practice as a physician. It's not why I put up with all the abuse. It's not why I refuse a plush Congressional pension.

I'm in this fight for a reason. I want to hand on to my children and grandchildren, and to you and your family, a great and free America, an America true to her Constitution, an America worthy of her history. I will not let the crooks and clowns and criminals have their way. I'm in Congress to represent the ideas of liberty, the ideas that you and I share, for the people of my district, for the people of Texas, for the people of America. That's why I'm working to stop federal abuses, and to cut the government: its taxes, its bureaucrats, its paramilitary police, its spending, its meddling overseas, and every single unconstitutional action it takes. And not with a pair of nail scissors, but with a hammer and chisel. Won't you help me do this work?

Not much of the federal leviathan would be left, if I had my way. But you'd be able to keep the money you earn, your privacy would be secure, your dollar would be sound, your local school would be tops, and your kids wouldn't be sent off to some useless or vicious foreign war to fight for the UN. But Jefferson and the other Founders would recognize our government, and our descendants would bless us. By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.

Recently, I asked a famous Republican committee chairman- who's always talking about getting rid of IRS- why he engineered a secret $580 million raise for the tax collectors. "They need it for their computers," this guy told me. So the IRS can't extract enough from us as it is! The National Taxpayers Union says I have the highest pro-taxpayer rating in Congressional history, that I am the top "Taxpayer's Best Friend." You know I won't play the Capitol Hill games with the Capitol Hill gang, denouncing the IRS while giving the Gestapo more of your money. Or figuring out some other federal tax for them to squeeze out of you. I also want to abolish the Federal Reserve, and send Alan Greenspan out to get a job.

The value of our dollar and the level of our interest rates are not supposed to be manipulated by a few members of the power elite meeting secretly in a marble palace. The Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, pure and simple. The only Constitutional money is gold and silver, not notes redeemable in them. Not fed funny money. Without the Federal Reserve, our money could not be inflated at the behest of big government or big banks. Your income and savings would not lose their value. Just as important, we wouldn't have this endless string of booms and busts, recessions and depressions, with each bust getting worse.

They aren't natural to the free market; they're caused by the schemers at the Fed. President Andrew Jackson called the 19th-century Fed "The Monster" because it was a vehicle for inflation and all sorts of special-interest corruption. Let me tell you, things haven't changed a bit. I also work to save our schools from D.C. interference.

Thanks to the feds, new curriculums not only smear the Founders as "racist, slave-owning elitists," they seek to dumb down our students so they will all be equal. "Look-say" reading and the abolition of phonics has the same purpose, and so does the new "fuzzy" math, in which there are no right and no wrong answers. That must be what they use in the U.S. Treasury! It's certainly what they use in the U.S. Congress.

But ever since the beginning of federal aid to education and accelerating with the establishment of the rotten Department of Education, SAT scores have been dropping. Schools, with few exceptions, are getting worse every year. To save our kids, we must get the sticky fingers of the feds off our local schools, and let parents rule. That's what the Constitution says, and the Bible too.

And then there's my least favorite topic, the UN. World government is obviously unconstitutional. It undermines our country's sovereignty in the worst way possible. That's why I want us out of the UN, and the UN itself taking a hike. After all, the UN is socialist and corrupt (many votes can be bought with a "blonde and a case of scotch," one UN ambassador once said). It costs many billions, and it puts our soldiers in UN uniforms under foreign commanders, and sends them off to unconstitutional, undeclared wars.

When Michael New, one of the finest young men I've ever met, objected to wearing UN blue, he was kicked out of the American Army. What an outrage! Not one dime for the UN, and not one American soldier! Not in Haiti, not in Bosnia, not in Somalia, not in Rwanda. I know its radical, but how about devoting American military efforts to defending America, and only America?

Such ideas, said one newspaper reporter, make me a maverick who will never go far because he won't go along to get along. Darn right! What does "go far" mean? Get a big government job? To heck with that. And I won't sell my vote for pork either.

When I walked through the U.S. Capitol this morning, I got angry. The building is filled with statues and painting of Jefferson, Madison, and the other Founders. Those great men sacrificed everything to give us a free country, and a Constitution to keep it that way. When I was first elected, I placed my hand on the Bible and swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. That's exactly what I'm fighting for.

But such ideas drive the liberals crazy.

That's why I badly need your help. I've been targeted nationally for defeat. The Democrats, the AFL-CIO, the teachers union, big business PACs, the trial lawyers, the big bankers, the foreign-aid lobbyists, the big media, and the establishment Republicans want to dance on my political grave. The Fed, the Education Department, and the UN are anxious to join in. They can't stand even one person telling the truth. And they're terrified when that truth gains the people's support.

Right now, four well-funded Democrats are competing to try to beat me, and a Republican is rumored to have been offered money at a secret meeting in Mexico(!) if he would try to knock me off in a primary. Won't you help me stay up here to fight? Frankly, I am in trouble if you don't. My Texas district has 22,000 square miles (not a misprint). I've got to travel all over it, set up small offices to be manned by volunteers, advertise, pay phone bills, and distribute video and audio tapes to the people to get around the big-media lies. As I know from my last election, which I won by the skin of my teeth, the media will carry any smear, repeat any libel, throw any piece of mud, no matter how untrue. In fact, the less true, the more they like it. They are determined to silence me. But you can help me overcome all this.

Together, we can beat the bad guys arrayed against our country and our freedom. We can support the Constitution. We can win. Your generous contribution of $25 or $50 would be great... $100, $250, or even $500 or $1,000 would be magnificent. Of course, any amount would help, and in return, I will keep you up-to-date on this fight as a member of my "kitchen cabinet." What great men founded this country! What great people have carried on their fight! That fight is not lost, not if you will join it.

Washington, D.C. is a loser, but among the people, our ideas are gaining every single day.

Keep the tide turning in our direction. Please make your most generous contribution. Join this fight for the Constitution, and stop those who want to rip it up, and throw it in the Potomac. Together, we can join the Founders' fight. Together, we can make history.

Sincerely, Ron Paul
U. S. Congressman
203 Cannon,
Washington D.C. 20515

Committee to Re-elect Ron Paul
837 W. Plantation

liittyy aiheeseen eli USAn hallituksen harjoittamiin laittomuuksiin ja YK:n

Jaa Jaa, eli siis linnut eivät levitä viruksia vaan asia on niin kuin ajattelinkin: halusivat verukkeella päästä pientuottajista eroon, ja tietenkin ihmisten omavaraisuudesta.
Jos väitteeni kuulostaa oudolta, niin muistakoon lukija Egyptissä kopteilta tapetut siat, ympäri maailmaa viruksen takia lihvatut linnut, hullun lehmän taudin, goat feverin jne
Vaikka järki sanoo, että keskitetyt, isot sikalat/kanalat/navetat/vuohelat/whatever ovat todennäköisempiä taudin alkulähteitä, sairastuneet eläimet löytyvät aina pientuottajilta.

Isoissa lihantuotantolaitoksissa eläimiä ruokitaan lisäksi antibiooteilla, GM-rehulla ja kasvuhormoneilla lihasmassan lisäämiseksi.
Kohta varmaan kieltävät hirvenmetsästyksen paitsi "ylimystöltä".

Ja sitten maailmalta:

Rolling Stone: It's Already Stolen
Investigation by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast Released Today

by Rolling Stone Magazine, Oct 16, 2008
[RollingStone.com]

Category: Introduction to the 2008 Election

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast

Don’t worry about Mickey Mouse or ACORN stealing the election. According to an investigative report out today in Rolling Stone magazine, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast, after a year-long investigation, reveal a systematic program of "GOP vote tampering" on a massive scale.

- Republican Secretaries of State of swing-state Colorado have quietly purged one in six names from their voter rolls.

Over several months, the GOP politicos in Colorado stonewalled every attempt by Rolling Stone to get an answer to the massive purge - ten times the average state's rate of removal.

- While Obama dreams of riding to the White House on a wave of new voters, more then 2.7 million have had their registrations REJECTED under new procedures signed into law by George Bush.

Kennedy, a voting rights lawyer, charges this is a resurgence of 'Jim Crow' tactics to wrongly block Black and Hispanic voters.

- A fired US prosecutor levels new charges - accusing leaders of his own party, Republicans, with criminal acts in an attempt to block legal voters as "fraudulent."

- Digging through government records, the Kennedy-Palast team discovered that, in 2004, a GOP scheme called "caging” ultimately took away the rights of 1.1 million voters. The Rolling Stone duo predict that, this November 4, it will be far worse.

There's more:

- Since the last presidential race, "States used dubious 'list management' rules to scrub at least 10 million voters from their rolls."

Among those was Paul Maez of Las Vegas, New Mexico - a victim of an unreported but devastating purge of voters in that state that left as many as one in nine Democrats without a vote. For Maez, the state's purging his registration was particularly shocking - he's the county elections supervisor.

The Kennedy-Palast revelations go far beyond the sum of questionably purged voters recently reported by the New York Times.

"Republican operatives - the party's elite commandos of bare-knuckle politics," report Kennedy and Palast, under the cover of fighting fraudulent voting, are "systematically disenfranchis[ing] Democrats."

The investigators level a deadly serious charge:

"If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat McCain at the polls - they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering."

Block the Vote by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. & Greg Palast in the current issue (#1064) of Rolling Stone. [Media enquiries - Dave Falkenstein, Sunshine Sachs & Assoc, via interviews@gregpalast.com.]

Note - Kennedy and Palast are releasing, simultaneously with the Rolling Stone investigative report what they call, the vote-theft 'antidote': a 24-page full-color comic book, Steal Back Your Vote, which can be downloaded or obtained in print from their non-partisan website, StealBackYourVote.org

For updates and video reports, go to RollingStone.com, www.GregPalast.com and StealBackYourVote.org.

Suomen Rikolaki:

11 luku (11.4.2008/212)
Sotarikoksista ja rikoksista ihmisyyttä vastaan
1 § (11.4.2008/212)
Joukkotuhonta
Joka jonkin kansallisen, etnisen, rodullisen tai uskonnollisen taikka niihin rinnastettavan kansanryhmän hävittämiseksi kokonaan tai osittain

1) surmaa ryhmän jäseniä,

2) aiheuttaa ryhmän jäsenille vaikeita ruumiillisia tai henkisiä sairauksia tai vammoja,

3) asettaa ryhmälle sellaisia elinehtoja, joista voi aiheutua ryhmän fyysinen häviäminen kokonaan tai osittain,

4) ryhtyy pakkotoimiin syntyvyyden ehkäisemiseksi ryhmän keskuudessa tai

5) pakolla siirtää lapsia ryhmästä toiseen,

on tuomittava joukkotuhonnasta vankeuteen vähintään neljäksi vuodeksi tai elinkaudeksi.

Yritys on rangaistava.

2 § (11.4.2008/212)
Joukkotuhonnan valmistelu
Joka 1 §:ssä mainitussa tarkoituksessa

1) sopii toisen kanssa joukkotuhonnasta tai

2) laatii joukkotuhontasuunnitelman,

on tuomittava joukkotuhonnan valmistelusta vankeuteen vähintään neljäksi kuukaudeksi ja enintään neljäksi vuodeksi.

3 § (11.4.2008/212)
Rikos ihmisyyttä vastaan
Joka osana siviiliväestöön kohdistuvaa laajamittaista tai järjestelmällistä hyökkäystä

1) surmaa tai orjuuttaa toisen, käy hänellä kauppaa tekemällä tarjouksen, ostamalla, myymällä tai vuokraamalla taikka kiduttaa häntä tai aiheuttaa hänelle muulla tavoin suurta kärsimystä tai vaikean vamman taikka vahingoittaa vakavasti hänen terveyttään taikka tuhoaa väestöä asettamalla sitä tai sen osaa hävittäviä elinehtoja tai muulla tavoin,

2) karkottaa tai pakolla siirtää alueella laillisesti oleskelevaa väestöä,

3) vangitsee toisen tai muuten riistää häneltä vapauden kansainvälisen oikeuden perustavaa laatua olevien määräysten vastaisesti taikka aiheuttaa vapautensa menettäneen tahdonvastaisen katoamisen,

4) raiskaa toisen, orjuuttaa häntä seksuaalisesti, pakottaa hänet prostituutioon, raskauteen tai sterilisaatioon taikka harjoittaa häntä vastaan muuta vastaavaa törkeää seksuaalista väkivaltaa tai

5) harjoittaa rotuerottelua taikka vainoaa tunnistettavissa olevaa ryhmää tai yhteisöä poliittisen mielipiteen, rodun, kansallisuuden, etnisen alkuperän, kulttuurin, uskonnon tai sukupuolen perusteella taikka niihin rinnastettavilla muilla perusteilla,

on tuomittava rikoksesta ihmisyyttä vastaan vankeuteen vähintään yhdeksi vuodeksi tai elinkaudeksi.

Yritys on rangaistava.

4 § (11.4.2008/212)
Törkeä rikos ihmisyyttä vastaan
Jos rikoksessa ihmisyyttä vastaan

1) rikos kohdistuu suureen joukkoon ihmisiä,

2) rikos tehdään erityisen raa"alla, julmalla tai nöyryyttävällä tavalla taikka

3) rikos tehdään erityisen suunnitelmallisesti tai järjestelmällisesti

ja rikos on myös kokonaisuutena arvostellen törkeä, rikoksentekijä on tuomittava törkeästä rikoksesta ihmisyyttä vastaan vankeuteen vähintään kahdeksaksi vuodeksi tai elinkaudeksi.

Yritys on rangaistava.

5 § (11.4.2008/212)
Sotarikos
Joka sodan taikka muun kansainvälisen tai valtionsisäisen aseellisen selkkauksen tai miehityksen yhteydessä vastoin maasotavoimiin kuuluvien haavoittuneiden ja sairaiden aseman parantamisesta, merisotavoimiin kuuluvien haavoittuneiden, sairaiden ja haaksirikkoutuneiden aseman parantamisesta, sotavankien kohtelusta tai siviilihenkilöiden suojelemisesta sodan aikana tehtyjä Geneven sopimuksia (SopS 8/1955, Geneven yleissopimukset) tai kansainvälisten aseellisten selkkausten uhrien suojelemisesta ja kansainvälistä luonnetta vailla olevien aseellisten selkkausten uhrien suojelemisesta tehtyjä, vuoden 1949 Geneven yleissopimusten lisäpöytäkirjoja (SopS 82/1980, I ja II lisäpöytäkirja) taikka muita sotaa, aseellisia selkkauksia tai miehitystä koskevia kansainvälisen oikeuden sääntöjä ja tapoja

1) surmaa toisen tai haavoittaa tai kiduttaa häntä taikka hänen etujensa vastaisesti silpoo häntä tai alistaa hänet biologiseen, lääketieteelliseen tai tieteelliseen kokeeseen taikka aiheuttaa hänelle muulla tavoin suurta kärsimystä tai vaikean vamman tai vahingoittaa vakavasti hänen terveyttään,

2) raiskaa toisen, orjuuttaa häntä seksuaalisesti, pakottaa hänet prostituutioon, raskauteen tai sterilisaatioon taikka harjoittaa häntä vastaan muuta vastaavaa törkeää seksuaalista väkivaltaa,

3) tuhoaa, takavarikoi tai anastaa omaisuutta mielivaltaisesti ja ilman sotilaallista tarvetta,

4) hyökkäyksen yhteydessä tai muutoin ryöstää kaupungin tai muun vastaavan paikan,

5) ottaa tai värvää alle 18-vuotiaita lapsia asevoimiin tai ryhmiin, joissa heitä käytetään vihollisuuksiin,

6) pakottaa sotavangin tai muun suojellun henkilön palvelemaan vihollisen asevoimissa tai osallistumaan sotatoimiin omaa maataan vastaan,

7) epää sotavangilta tai muulta suojellulta henkilöltä oikeudenmukaista ja laillista oikeudenkäyntiä koskevat oikeudet taikka muutoin kieltää häneltä oikeudelliset takeet,

8) aloittaa hyökkäyksen, joka aiheuttaa ihmishenkien menetyksiä tai vammoja taikka laajoja, pitkäaikaisia ja vakavia ympäristövahinkoja, jotka ovat selvästi liiallisia verrattuna odotettavissa olevaan todelliseen ja välittömään sotilaalliseen hyötyyn,

9) hyökkää siviiliväestöä, vihollisuuksiin osallistumattomia siviilihenkilöitä tai siviilikohteita taikka Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien peruskirjan (SopS 1/1956) mukaisissa tehtävissä olevia henkilöitä tai heidän käytössään olevaa omaisuutta vastaan,

10) hyökkää siviilikohteisiin, joita ei puolusteta, tai pommittaa niitä, hyökkää uskonnonharjoitukseen, tieteeseen, taiteeseen, sairaanhoitoon tai hyväntekeväisyyteen tarkoitettuihin kohteisiin tai historiallisia muistomerkkejä vastaan taikka hyökkää Geneven yleissopimuksissa tai niiden I tai III lisäpöytäkirjassa tarkoitettuja tunnusmerkkejä käyttäviä vastaan,

11) käyttää väärin valkoista lippua, vihollisen lippua, Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien lippua, sotilasmerkkiä, sotilaspukua tai Geneven yleissopimuksissa tai niiden I tai III lisäpöytäkirjassa tarkoitettuja tunnusmerkkejä,

12) pitää laittomasti vangittuna taikka pakkotoimin siirtää tai karkottaa väestöä tai sen osia,

13) ottaa ihmisiä panttivangeiksi, ilmoittaa, että armoa ei anneta, käyttää hyväksi siviilihenkilöitä tai muita suojeltuja henkilöitä sotilaskohteiden suojelemiseksi, estää siviilihenkilöiltä ravinnon tai muiden henkiin jäämiseksi välttämättömien tarvikkeiden saamisen tai tarpeellisen hätäavun taikka käyttää muuta kansainvälisessä oikeudessa kiellettyä sodankäyntitapaa taikka

14) käyttää myrkkyä tai myrkkyasetta, tukehduttavia tai myrkyllisiä kaasuja taikka muita vastaavia aineita, liiallisia vammoja tai tarpeetonta kärsimystä aiheuttavia aseita, ammuksia tai tarvikkeita taikka kemiallisia, biologisia tai muita kiellettyjä aseita tai taisteluvälineitä,

on tuomittava sotarikoksesta vankeuteen vähintään yhdeksi vuodeksi tai elinkaudeksi.

Sotarikoksesta tuomitaan myös se, joka tekee Kansainvälisen rikostuomioistuimen Rooman perussäännön (SopS 56/2002) 8 artiklassa sotarikokseksi määritellyn muun teon taikka muulla tavoin rikkoo Suomea velvoittavan sotaa, aseellista selkkausta tai miehitystä koskevan kansainvälisen sopimuksen määräyksiä taikka yleisesti tunnustettuja ja vakiintuneita kansainvälisen oikeuden mukaisia sodan lakeja ja tapoja.

Yritys on rangaistava.

6 § (11.4.2008/212)
Törkeä sotarikos
Jos sotarikos tehdään osana suunnitelmaa tai politiikkaa taikka osana laajamittaisia sotarikoksia ja

1) rikos kohdistuu suureen joukkoon ihmisiä,

2) rikoksella aiheutetaan erittäin suurta ja laaja-alaista vahinkoa,

3) rikos tehdään erityisen raa"alla, julmalla tai nöyryyttävällä tavalla taikka

4) rikos tehdään erityisen suunnitelmallisesti tai järjestelmällisesti

ja rikos on myös kokonaisuutena arvostellen törkeä, rikoksentekijä on tuomittava törkeästä sotarikoksesta vankeuteen vähintään kahdeksaksi vuodeksi tai elinkaudeksi.

Yritys on rangaistava.

7 § (11.4.2008/212)
Lievä sotarikos
Jos sotarikos, huomioon ottaen aiheutettu seuraus tai muut rikokseen liittyvät seikat, on kokonaisuutena arvostellen vähäinen, rikoksentekijä on tuomittava lievästä sotarikoksesta sakkoon tai vankeuteen enintään kahdeksi vuodeksi.

Yritys on rangaistava.

8 § (11.4.2008/212)
Kemiallisen aseen kiellon rikkominen
Joka kemiallisten aseiden kehittämisen, tuotannon, varastoinnin ja käytön kieltämistä sekä niiden hävittämistä koskevan yleissopimuksen (SopS 19/1997) vastaisesti

1) muuten kuin 5–7 §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla käyttää kemiallista asetta,

2) kehittää, tuottaa, muutoin hankkii, varastoi, pitää hallussaan tai kuljettaa kemiallisen aseen taikka

3) osallistuu sotilaalliseen valmisteluun kemiallisen aseen käyttämiseksi,

on tuomittava kemiallisen aseen kiellon rikkomisesta vankeuteen vähintään neljäksi kuukaudeksi ja enintään kuudeksi vuodeksi.

9 § (11.4.2008/212)
Biologisen aseen kiellon rikkominen
Joka

1) muuten kuin 5–7 §:ssä tarkoitetulla tavalla käyttää biologista asetta tai toksiiniasetta,

2) laittomasti valmistaa, kuljettaa tai toimittaa biologisen aseen tai toksiiniaseen tai

3) bakteriologisten (biologisten) ja toksiiniaseiden kehittämisen, tuottamisen ja varastoinnin kieltämistä sekä niiden hävittämistä koskevan yleissopimuksen (SopS 15/1975) vastaisesti kehittää, tuottaa, muutoin hankkii, varastoi tai pitää hallussaan biologisia aseita tai toksiiniaseita taikka aseita, laitteita tai välineitä biologisen aseen tai toksiiniaseen levittämiseksi,

on tuomittava, jollei teosta muualla laissa säädetä yhtä ankaraa tai ankarampaa rangaistusta, biologisen aseen kiellon rikkomisesta vankeuteen vähintään neljäksi kuukaudeksi ja enintään kuudeksi vuodeksi.

katt, #70

se ei löydy usarin haulla koska sana haarp ei ole otsikossa.

Kauhun Kannel
30.10.2008 0.21 | Riikka Söyring | Yleinen, Politiikka
HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program); tutkimusprojekti, jonka tavoitteena on oppia ymmärtämään, simuloimaan ja kontrolloimaan tapahtuvia sähkömagneettisia prosesseja.

Alaskassa sijaitseva, Yhdysvaltain ilmavoimien ja laivaston rahoittama HAARP käyttää IRI-lähettimiä, vaiheistettuja antenneja, joilla lähetyksen pystyy kohdistamaan haluttuun suuntaan ja keskittämään hyvinkin pienelle alueelle.

Hyviä kohteita ovat sotatilan vallitessa viholliseksi katsotun valtion ydinvoimalat.
HAARP on ionosfäärin lämmitin/pommittaja joka lähettää suurella teholla korkeataajuista sähkömagneettista säteilyä ionosfäärin alaosan kerroksiin. Säteilylle altistettua osaa voidaan muokata toimimaan virtuaalisena antennina maasta suunnatuille radioaalloille. Radiolähetykset altistettuun kohtaan peilaantuvat takaisin haluttuun kohtaan laajemmalle peittoalueelle.

Vastaavanlaisia ionosfäärin lämmittimiä ovat esim. HIPAS Alaskassa, EISCAT Norjassa ja SURA Venäjällä.
Ionosfäärillä on suuri merkitys maailmanlaajuisessa langattomassa viestiliikenteessä. Merkittävä osa käytettävistä taajuuksista on herkkiä muutoksille ja häiriöille. Ionosfääriä manipuloimalla voidaan häiritä pitkän matkan ohjusten ohjausjärjestelmiä sekä satelliittien ja tukiasemien välistä viestiliikennettä= paljon erilaisia mahdollisuuksia HAARPin käyttöön sodankäynnissä ja/tai tarkoituksellisen viestintä-kaaostilan aiheuttamisessa.
Muita HAARPin sovellutuksia ovat ilmastoon vaikuttaminen. HAARPin avulla voidaan luoda keinotekoisia myrskyjä, tulvia ja kuivuutta haluttuun kohtaan eri puolilla maapalloa. Ekologista häirintää ilmakehässä voi harjoittaa ilman että kohde sitä välttämättä edes huomaa. Sodankäynnissä ja taloudellisissa neuvotteluissa kuivuuden aiheuttamalla nälänhädällä uhkaaminen on erinomainen ruuvikiristin.
Aseissa on se ikävä puoli että ne harvoin jäävät kaappiin vain peloitteiksi. Ihmisellä on halu kokeilla.
Ihmismielen manipuloiminenkin, aivomyrskyn aiheuttaminen, on eräs teoreettinen käyttömahdollisuus, onhan ihmisen aivotoiminta sähkökemiallista.
HAARPin tapaiset projektit kieltää v. 1977 YK:ssa hyväksytty yleissopimus joka pyrkii estämään vahingollisten ympäristömuutosten aikaansaamisen maapallon luontaiseen dynamiikkaan, koostumukseen ja rakenteisiin.

Rio de Janeirossa v. 1992 hyväksytty ilmastonmuutoksen puitesopimus vahvistaa v. 1977 sopimuksen.
Napajäätiköillä on muuten havaittu sulamisvesien runsasta lisääntymistä. Maapallon kaltevuuskulma on muuttumassa.

Johtuneeko tuo sittenkään pelkästään yksityisautoilusta?

Lisätietoja esim.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/HAARP ja
www.haarp.alaska.edu

WHO and Big Pharma: Guilty of Blackmail and Extortion in Swine Flu Fiasco?
Posted by: Dr. Mercola
January 21 2010 | 5,520 views

On January 25 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will launch an emergency inquiry regarding the influence of pharmaceutical companies on the global swine flu campaign.

The inquiry will focus on the drug industry’s influence on the World Health Organization (WHO).

The motion was introduced by Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, who has accused the makers of flu drugs and vaccines of influencing the World Health Organization’s decision to declare a pandemic.

The motionhas now been signed by 14 members from 10 countries sitting on the EU’s Health Committee, who are angry that nations all over the world, and particularly in Europe, have wasted scarce health funds on a contrived “pandemic.”

The investigation is listed on the EU’s draft agenda as “Request for Debate Under Urgent Procedure on ‘Faked Pandemics – A Threat for Health’.”

Sources:
Global Research December 31, 2009

PharmaTimes January 4, 2009

Health Committee, PACE, December 18, 2009

Mail Online January 18, 2010

Finally! This step is a long-overdue move to public transparency of a “Golden Triangle” of corruption between the WHO, the drug industry and academic scientists that has permanently damaged the lives of millions of people, and even caused death.

It is satisfying to see that the role of the WHO and its pandemic emergency declaration in June of 2009 will be the special focus of a years-overdue inquiry into how deeply Big Pharma’s tentacles reach into this organization.

I applaud Dr. Wolfgang Woodard, chairman of the EU Health Committee, for leading the charge in demanding the probe.

‘Under the Influence’

As I have said from the very beginning , this so-called pandemic was never a pandemic in the true sense It only became a “pandemic” by definition when the WHO decided to change the definition in May last year.

That’s when they changed the criteria for a pandemic to make it no longer necessary for an enormous amount of people to have contracted an illness or died before a pandemic could be called. Instead, under the new definition, all it takes to declare a pandemic is a virus that people have no immunity toward, which is spreading beyond borders.

In other words, it doesn’t matter how many, or how few, people are affected. All a disease has to do to be a pandemic is move beyond a few countries’ borders.

By changing the definition, nations were compelled to implement pandemic plans and to purchase H1N1 flu vaccines, enabling drug companies to pocket billions of dollars on fast-tracked, untested vaccines.

In the motion to investigate this travesty, the EU Health Committee denounced what the WHO did, saying “The definition of an alarming pandemic must not be under the influence of drug-sellers.”

‘Everybody’ Should Have Questioned WHO

Talk about laying the cards on the table! Finally, leaders of entire nations are recognizing how insidious Big Pharma’s influence is on the world’s policy makers, and are joining together to demand an accounting!

The EU Health Committee didn’t stop there, however. The committee’s short but succinct motion minces no words in what its members think about the WHO’s H1N1 “pandemic”:

“In order to promote their patented drugs and vaccines against flu, pharmaceutical companies have influenced scientists and official agencies, responsible for public health standards, to alarm governments worldwide,” the motion says.

“They have made (governments) squander tight health care resources for inefficient vaccine strategies and needlessly exposed millions of healthy people to the risk of unknown side-effects of insufficiently tested vaccines.

The ”birds-flu“-campaign (2005/06) combined with the ”swine-flu“-campaign seem to have caused a great deal of damage not only to some vaccinated patients and to public health budgets, but also to the credibility and accountability of important international health agencies.”

That is exactly what I said in this previous report – that by declaring this non-pandemic a pandemic, the WHO has recklessly damaged its credibility, so much so that it’s possible that when a real pandemic hits, nobody will pay attention! In an interview with PharmaTimes Dr. Wodarg called the H1N1 pandemic “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.”

And in an interview with a Danish news agency, which Dr. Wodarg reprinted in English on his blog, Dr. Wodarg said, “Everybody who knows about epidemiology should have questioned the way WHO handled this case from the beginning.”

All Profit, No Risk

So what’s going on here, anyway? If the pandemic was faked, as the EU Health Committee alleges, what would be the motivation behind it?

Dr. Wodarg has a theory about that too.

He became suspicious, he said in his Danish interview, when he asked the WHO in 2004 during the avian flu episode about how they defined a pandemic. This is what he learned:

“The governments have sealed contracts with vaccine producers where they secure orders in advance and take upon themselves almost all the responsibility. In this way the producers of vaccines are sure of enormous gains without having any financial risks. So they just wait until WHO says ‘pandemic’ and activate the contracts.”

Sound familiar?

Sadly, that’s also how vaccine injury immunity works in the US – where drug companies are shielded from responsibility through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, so everything they produce is all profit and no risk.

The avian flu (H5N1) triggered an “atmosphere of panic” that influenced many European countries to create an emergency pandemic plan at the cost of hundreds of millions – and in some cases, billions – of Euros, according to Dr. Wodarg.

The pandemic plans then laid the groundwork for H1N1 to be called a pandemic even though it could have been handled through normal influenza season vaccine strategies.

“You could have used the same method to vaccinate the population against swine flu in a much cheaper fashion,” Dr. Wodarg says. “If you simply had added H1N1 to the flu vaccines we already have in stocks, then there would have been no need for a pandemic.”

Money, Money, Money

Dr. Wodarg believes the real reason behind the H1N1 “pandemic” is money. That’s money as in patent-protection that allows drug companies to make untold amounts of profit on a patented process or drug component.

“Some of the additives in the vaccines are patented,” Dr. Wodarg says in this interview. “And therefore nobody from the industry is interested in mixing the old vaccine with the new one.”

Furthermore, H1N1 vaccine makers and world health officials recommended that everyone be inoculated twice for this particular flu – which is not normal.

“It is self-evident that they earn more money that way,” Dr. Wodarg says. “Therefore several things made me suspicious.”

That’s right. It’s all about money.

And where does the WHO get its money?

From dues assessed to member countries, and voluntary contributions from non-profit organizations such as the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and – you guessed it! – pharmaceutical companies.

If you believe the old axiom, he who pays the piper calls the tune, the conflicts of interest that can occur in accepting voluntary contributions from drug companies can be troubling, to say the least.

That’s why Dr. Wodarg says he shared his concerns with the European Council, and asked them to investigate what happened with the H1N1 pandemic.

“There is no control over the WHO,” Dr. Wodarg said when he announced the Health Committee’s motion to investigate.

“Only governments can exercise influence through the annual assembly in WHO. Today, a majority of the Health Committee in the European Council agree on an independent investigation of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on WHO.”

While it isn’t realistic to remove industry from the WHO completely, Wodarg added that he does believe that industry should be barred from participating in committees that decide on what is a pandemic, and who should be inoculated.

“We have to insist on transparency,” Dr. Wodarg said.

Medicines: corruption and pharmaceuticals

Key facts
•US$ 4.1 trillion is spent globally on health services every year, with US$ 750 billion spent in the pharmaceutical market.
•10 to 25% of public procurement spending (including on pharmaceuticals) is lost to corrupt practices.
•In developed countries, fraud and abuse in health care has been estimated to cost individual governments as much as US$ 23 billion per year.
•Countries with a higher incidence of corruption have higher child mortality rates.
•Lack of medicines and counterfeit and substandard medicines lead to patient suffering and have direct life or death consequences.
•To reduce corruption, thorough checks and balances are required at each step in the medicine chain. Good governance includes transparency, accountability, promoting institutional integrity and moral leadership.

Access to health care and essential medicines is needed to reduce disease and death, and enhance quality of life. Medicines are only beneficial when they are safe, of high quality, and properly distributed and used by patients.

Unethical practices in the medicines chain
The medicines chain refers to the steps required for the creation, regulation, management and consumption of pharmaceuticals. Corruption in the pharmaceutical sector occurs throughout all stages of the medicines chain, from research and development to dispensing and promotion1.

Related links:

Figure: Key steps of the medicine supply chain and unethical practices in the pharmaceutical sector [gif 86kb]

Good Governance for Medicines programme (GGM)

GGM's three-step process

Unethical practices along the chain can take many forms such as falsification of evidence, mismanagement of conflict of interest, or bribery. The Figure illustrates key steps of the medicines chain and some examples of unethical practices.

Good governance within the medicines chain is one essential means for optimizing public health outcomes. For example, countries with higher incidence of corruption have higher child mortality rates, even after statistically controlling for quality of health-care provision2.

What factors contribute to pharmaceutical corruption?
US$ 4.1 trillion is spent globally on health services each year3 with US$ 750 billion spent in the global pharmaceuticals market4. However, 10 to 25% of public procurement spending (including on pharmaceuticals) is lost to corrupt practices5. Medicines change hands several times before reaching patients. The large number of steps in the medicines chain allows numerous opportunities for unethical practices to take place.

While there are reported cases of corruption in the medicines chain, much unethical practice goes unreported. This is due to fear of victimization and retaliation towards whistle-blowers, and a lack of incentives to come forward. Some forms of corruption have become institutionalized to the point where people feel powerless to influence change in their countries.

Countries with weak governance within the medicines chain are more susceptible to being exploited by corruption. These countries lack:

•appropriate legislation or regulation of medicines;
•enforcement mechanisms for laws, regulations and administrative procedures;
•conflict of interest management.
A lack of transparency and accountability within the medicines chain can also contribute to unethical practices and corruption.

Impact of corruption
There are at least three main areas of negative impact from corruption in the medicines chain.

1.Negative patient impact. Unethical practices lead to reduced availability of medicines in health facilities due to diversion of medicines, as well as the presence of unsafe or ineffective products on the market. Diverted, counterfeit and substandard medicines have been identified in markets of both rich and poor countries, as well as medicines that are granted unwarranted registration. Such practices lead to patient suffering and have direct life or death consequences.
2.Lost resources. Corruption results in enormous amounts of limited public health resources being lost. For example, in developed countries, fraud and abuse in health care has been estimated to cost individual governments as much as US$ 12–23 billion per year6. In developing countries, up to 89% leakage of procurement and operational costs has been observed7. Such losses cripple the ability of health-care institutions to provide adequate care.
3.Eroding confidence. Corruption also takes a more subtle toll by eroding public and donor confidence in public institutions. In some countries, the public health system is perceived as the most corrupt public service institution8. Pharmaceutical corruption within ministries of health has also threatened the withdrawal of donor contributions in some low-income countries9,10,11.
WHO response
To ensure accountability and reduce corruption, thorough checks and balances are required at each step in the medicines chain. Good governance, transparency, accountability, promoting institutional integrity and moral leadership are also essential.

WHO is committed to reducing corruption in the medicines chain through its Good Governance for Medicines (GGM) programme, launched in 2004. By applying transparent, accountable administrative procedures and by promoting ethical practices, GGM provides support for countries to curb corruption. The programme assists countries through a three-step process of assessing their vulnerabilities to corruption, and developing and implementing specific programmes to maintain efficient health-care systems that are not undermined by the abuse of corruption.

References
1. Measuring transparency in the public pharmaceutical sector: assessment instrument, WHO/EMP/MAR/2009.4.

2. Gupta S, Davoodi H, et al., (2000). Corruption and the provision of healthcare and education services, International Monetary Fund:11.

3. WHO Fact Sheet: spending on health: a global overview, 2007.
4. IMS Health lowers 2009 global pharmaceutical market forecast to 2.5–3.5 percent growth, IMS New Releases.

5. Transparency International (2006). Handbook for curbing corruption in public procurement.

6. Becker D, Kessler D, McClellan M. Detecting medicare abuse. Journal of Health Economics, 2005, 24:189–210.

7. Ye, X, Canagarajah, S. (2002). Efficiency of public expenditure distribution and beyond: a report on Ghana's 2000 public expenditure tracking survey in the sectors of primary health and education. Africa Region Working Paper, No. 31.

8. Fidler A, Msisha W, Governance in the pharmaceutical sector, Eurohealth 14, 2008, No. 1:25–29.

9. The Global Fund welcomes Ugandan corruption inquiry report, Global Fund Press Release, June 2006.

10. The K27 billions scandal at the ministry of health, The Lusaka Paper, June 2009.

11. Dutch Government stops aid to Zambia, Africa News, May 2009.

repe, #93, good point!
Ja siitä huolimatta haluan uskoa a) ihmiseen b) Suomen puolustusvoimiin (mietipä miten niiltä on pyritty viemään hampaita supistuksilla, hallituksen toimesta) c) lippuvalaan (tai voihan olla että sitäkin on muutettu, en tiedä).

foliohattu, #97, minustakin jesse ventura on epäilyttävä. Sikäli hyödyllinen (meillekin), että käyttää videoklippejä mutta minusta em. hra on pantu yllyttämään ihmisiä kiipeämään seinille.

Vaccination Without Doctor Approval In a US Hospital

S. Humphries, MD

January 22, 2010

H1N1 and seasonal influenza vaccines are now being given to sick hospital patients with or without their doctor’s consent. This is being done despite there being no data on the safety of doing so.

Sairaalat rokottavat vuodepotilaita flunssarokottein ilman lääkärien määräystä/lupaa. Näin, vaikka turvallisuudesta ei ole takeita.

I am a licensed, board-certified nephrologist, otherwise known as a kidney specialist, working in a large, city-based hospital. Because I rarely admit patients to the hospital other than for specific procedures, such as a kidney biopsy, I only recently became aware of my hospital’s policy regarding flu shots for sick people. Waking up to this new rule made me realize that Big Pharma is getting closer and closer to bypassing doctors completely to deliver direct patient “care”.

Olen lisensoitu nephrologi, muuten munuaisspesialistina tunnettu. Vasta hiljan tulin tietoiseksi sairaalani käytännöstä rokoteasioissa. BigPharma tulee lähemmäksi ja lähemmäksi, ohittaen lääkärit potilaiden hoidossa, siltä näyttää.

We have an elaborate electronic charting system at our hospital. All of the medications and procedure orders are placed into the patient’s record by doctors and nurses so that every person has access to all that is happening with the patient. A few weeks ago, I arrived to see my first patient of the day, a patient with a kidney ailment that leaks protein and usually progresses to complete kidney shutdown. When I opened her electronic chart, I expected my section to be empty. Instead, I saw an order for an influenza vaccine with my name on it. Even more shocking was that the order was highlighted bright blue, meaning, the shot had already been given. I thought perhaps I had opened the wrong chart or some sort of mistake had been made. But it was the right file; her name in the upper left hand corner. And my electronic signature was on the page after the order. My patient, with kidney failure and an autoimmune disorder had been given a flu shot without my consent.

Meillä on hyvin hieno, täsmällinen rekisteröintisysteemi sairaalassamme. Kaikki potilaalle tehty ja määrätty näkyy elektronisessa tiedostossa, johon hoitajilla ja lääkäreillä on pääsy. Jokin aika sitten menin töihin, avasin päivän ensimmäisen potilaani tiedoston ja odotin näkeväni oman osastoni olevan tyhjä. Sen sijaan näin influenssarokotemääräyksen, jossa alla oli oma nimeni. Määräys oli sinisellä, mikä tarkoittaa että rokote oli jo annettu. Ajattelin, että kysymyksessä täytyy olla erehdys, kenties olin avannut väärän sivun. Mutta ei se ollut, elektroninen nimikirjoitukseni oli sivulla; rokote oli annettu minun potilaalleni, jolla on munuaisvika ja autoimmuunihäiriö. ROkote oli annettu ilman lupaani.

I was informed that according to a hospital policy that had been in effect since 2007, a pharmacist is permitted to visit a patient and offer them a flu vaccine. If the patient agrees, the RN is instructed to administer the shot and document the event in the chart. The attending physician’s signature stamp is used to complete the order. No one called to ask, “By the way, your patient wants a flu shot; can we give her one?” I’m not sure what was said to her, but she obviously agreed, and I didn’t need to be involved. The pharmacist had written an order for an injectable substance that I considered toxic and inappropriate for my patient, and it was administered by the RN before I even got to the floor.

Minulle kerrottiin että vuodesta 2007 sairaalan käytäntönä oli ollut, että farmaseutti voi vierailla potilaiden ja tarjota heille rokotteita. Jos potilas suostuu, rokote merkataan rekisteriin ja lääkärin leimaa käytetään "määräyksen" täydentämiseen. Lääkäriltä ei kysytä. Tässä tapauksessa farmaseutti oli kirjoittanut reseptin ja hoitaja oli antanut potilaalle rokotteen, jota minä hänen lääkärinään pidin myrkyllisenä, ottaen huomioon hänen sairautensa.

My dissatisfaction eventually made it to the Chief of Internal Medicine who challenged me to produce peer-reviewed journal articles in support of my objection. There were dozens of case reports of kidney disease or small blood vessel inflammation following influenza vaccination. In fact, one paper cited 16 patients in its written report(1). Under-reporting of adverse vaccine reactions is a known phenomenon. The National Vaccine Information Center estimates that only about two percent of adverse vaccine reactions ever get reported. It would follow that written and published case reports found in medical journals represent a miniscule sampling of the totality of vaccine injury cases. These implications should evoke at least some curiosity on the part of doctors and health care advocates.

Tyytymättömyyteni oli niin suuri, että että Sisätauti-osaston suuri päällikkö haastoi minut esittämään joitain vartikkeleita väitteideni todisteeksi vertaisarvioiduista lehdistä. Munuaistautien kohdalla artikkeleita rokotteiden haittavaikutuksista löytyy tusinoittain.---Rokotteiden haittavaikutusten raportointi on tunnetusti alimitoitettua. Rokotetutkimuskeskus arvioi että vain 2% haittavaikutuksista raportoidaan. Tästä seuraa, että vain minimaalinen osa todellisista haittavaiktuksista on lääkärien tiedossa. Luulisi tämän herättävän edes jonkinlaista uteliaisuutta lääkäreissä.

The peer-reviewed literature was delivered to the department head. His initial response was to suggest that future vaccination orders be signed off by another physician so I didn’t have to be involved with the process of a nurse giving a “routine” flu shot. But the point had been missed; flu shots should not be given to sick patients.

Vertaisarvioitu materiaali toimitettiin osaston johtajalle. Hänen vastauksensa oli, että rokotteet minun potilailleni voisi tulevaisuudessa allekirjoittaa joku toinen lääkäri, niin ettei minun tarvitse sekaantua hoitajien antamiin "rutiini"rokotteisiin. Rokotteita ei pitäisi antaa vuodepotilaille eikä sairaille.

I was challenging “routine orders” that had been in place since 2007. The defense for supporting the policy was that no side effects had been reported since the standing order had been instituted. I wondered to myself and then later inquired: How do you know that is true? Is it because nobody filed a formal report? If a patient became more ill after the shot, did you consider his condition to be a side effect of the vaccine, or was it simply called an unfortunate complication to the patient’s current illness? What if the patient was discharged from the hospital but readmitted several weeks later. Was the reason logged simply as a progression of his existing disease…or was the cause an overlooked, delayed side effect of the vaccination? If vaccine reactions are not considered as part of a patient’s differential diagnosis, how do you know? Without taking a vaccine history when considering a timeline of events, how could anybody possibly make the connection between a vaccine and a subsequent illness? How does anyone else know for that matter – that there were no side effects from the “routine” administration of flu shots, ordered by a pharmacist and given by a nurse, without doctor consent? The truth is, there is no real tracking and reporting system in place. And nobody is enthused about trying to start one. What has essentially happened is that the guards have all been told to go home and nobody is thinking to even look for the wolf.

lyhyesti: jos potilas sairastui rokotteen seurauksena, kysyikö kukaan johtuuko se rokotteesta vai pidettiinkö käännettä huonompaan/kuolemaa vain sairauden osana. Mitään kunnollista haittavaikutusten seurantajärjestelmää ei ole > ei tiedossa olevia haittavaikutuksia.

I am sure there are thousands of unreported cases of kidney failure – and a wide range of other serious health conditions – because doctors fail to ask a very simple question as part of the admission evaluation: “When was your last vaccine?” And few doctors suspect any connection because the party line screams, “Vaccines are safe, effective and harmless. They keep people healthy and prevent infection.” If nobody looks, vaccine-related side effects and complications won’t be found.

Olen varma, että on tuhansia ja tuhansia raportoimattomia munuaisten pettämisiä rokotteen saamisen jälkeen. Vain, koska lääkärit eivät kysy itseltään -Saiko potilas rokotteen ennen käännettä huonompaan? Harva lääkäri epäilee rokotteiden turvallisuutta koska heille on jankutettu että rokotteet ovat turvallisia ja estävät infektioita. Jos kukaan ei katso, haittavikutuksia ei löydy.

There was a law passed in 1986, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, that made vaccine manufacturers and administering physicians immune from legal recourse in the event of a vaccine injury. This has given manufacturers a dangerously long leash and has enabled them to push vaccines through FDA approval with little need to create a safe product. Now drug companies have extended their reach into the hospital right past doctors, and put the power to vaccinate in the hands of pharmacists and executive committees, allowing them to make decisions about what is best for a patient.

1986 tuli laki, joka vapauttaa rokotevalmistajat vastuusta tuotteidensa suhteen. Tämä antaa valmistajille vaarallisen pitkän pätkän liekaa mellastaa vapaasti. Yhtiöillä ei ole laillista pakkoa tai tarvetta kehitellä turvallisia rokotteita. Nyt lääkevalmistajat tunkevat sairaaloihin lääkäreiden ohi, lääkäreiltä on viety valta päättää, mikä heidän potilailleen on parasta (suom. huom. Suomessa tämä tapahtuu THL:n kautta).

For years, I have suspected that vaccines affect the immune system in an unnatural way. Those who are trained in the sciences should know this has to be true. For starters, the partial and temporary effect of a vaccination is significantly different than the precise and long-lasting cellular responses that come from a natural infection.

Jo vuosien ajan olen epäillyt, että rokotteet sotkevat luontaisen immuunisysteemin. Ne, joilla on tieteellistä koulutusta, tietävät (tai heidän pitäisi) että asia on näin. Alkajaisiksi; rokotteen paikallinen ja väliaikainen vaikutus on merkittävästi erilainen luonnollisella tavalla hankittuun immuniteettiin, joka tulee solujen pitkäaikaisesta ja kestävästä reagoinnista infektioon.

Vaccines contain more viral and bacterial particles than what we are told; there are known allowable contaminants in vaccine cultures and in vaccine vials(2). The solutions also contain heavy metals, carcinogenic chemicals and toxic preservatives. Vaccine-induced antibodies can become “confused”. They can then adhere or deposit in small blood vessels and the kidney filters called glomeruli, causing inflammation and degeneration, known as an “autoimmune response”; the person’s own antibodies attack and destroy the body. The incidence of autoimmune disease has sharply increased in recent years, and I believe that vaccines have played a role. That is why it has never made sense to me to vaccinate anyone, let alone someone who is sick--- but especially someone already sick with an autoimmune disease. While patients who are immunocompromised may be at a disadvantage when faced with infectious pathogens, giving them a flu shot with toxic chemicals cannot, in my estimation, possibly protect them. Moreover, it is known that elderly patients and those who are losing protein in the urine don’t necessarily mount a strong or protective response to flu vaccine injections. Despite these facts, the CDC and various medical organizations still recommend injecting sick, elderly patients with flu vaccines.

lyhyesti: rokotteissa on paljon enemmän virusta ja solumyrkkyjä kuin valmistajat antavat ymmärtää. ----autoimmuunisairaudet ovat jyrkästi yleistyneet rokotteiden antotahdin kiihtyessä. ---Sairaita vuodepotilaita ei missään tapauksessa pitäisi rokottaa.

There is no scientific basis for this. Vaccine research is conducted on healthy people. Vaccine research does not include double blind placebo studies; rather they use a false placebo which is often the prior years’ flu vaccine. Once a vaccine is approved for general use, the shot is routinely given to everyone. Case reports (1, 3-7) support the notion that it is highly possible that an unhealthy person could develop an exacerbation of an underlying kidney disease or that a healthy person could develop a new kidney disease after a vaccine. It should be common sense that patients who are sick and have advanced kidney disease are much more vulnerable to the 25 micrograms of mercury in multi-dose flu vaccines than healthy persons with normal kidney function.

lyhyesti: tervekin ihminen voi saada piilevän munuaissairauden rokotteista ja niiden sisältämistä myrkyistä kuten elohopeasta.

Doctors take note: You are not in control anymore. Your patients can be harmed by vaccines that you have not ordered-- while your back is turned.

Lääkärit! Huomatkaa, Te ette kontrolloi sairaanhoitoa enää. Potilaanne saatetaan rokottaa Teiltä kysymättä.

Patients: Be vigilant and ask questions. Big Pharma has dozed past another barrier and now its reach has expanded past your doctor and right into your hospital room. Propaganda about vaccines and the flu will be posted around the hospital. If ever there was a time to become highly suspicious of the motives in the world of hospitals and pharmaceutical business, it is now. Take these suggestions to heart:

Potilaat! Olkaa valppaina, kyselkää. Lääkeyhtiöt ovat tunkeneet sairaaloihin. Sairaaloissa propagoidaan rokotteiden puolesta.

When somebody other than your doctor enters your hospital room and offers you anything, even if they tell you the doctor ordered it, do not believe that you must accept it without first talking to the doctor in charge of your care. You have a right to know why you are being injected and what the risks are.

Jos joku muu kuin lääkäri tulee huoneeseenne ja tarjoaa Teille jotakin, vaikka he sanoisivat sen tapahtuvan lääkärin määräyksestä, ÄLKÄÄ USKOKO! Sanokaa, että kysytte ensin lääkäriltänne. Teillä on siihen oikeus.

If there is ever a good time to get a vaccine, it is not while you are sick. Please consider both sides of the vaccination debate before agreeing to one. You won’t be given a fact sheet with balanced pros and cons by a conventional medical doctor or by the hospital.

Hyvä aika rokotteen ottamiselle -jos sellaista nyt onkaan- ei ole silloin kun olette sairaana ja immuniteettinne on heikentynyt.

You have the right to refuse any drug, any shot and any intervention at any time, as long as you are psychologically competent.
Mine is only one story, but it represents things to come with the corporate takeover of medicine and the massive push for vaccines. It has been insidious but it is now showing up everywhere: In the schools, in Wal-Mart, in the mainstream press. The doctor-patient relationship is no longer valued or honored. Guidelines, recommendations and one-size-fits-all treatment programs of all comers for the sake of profit are the real driving forces. Our “health care system” has little to do with health. Even the word “health” has been mutated and twisted to represent some distorted picture that looks more like desperation for survival than thriving vitality. Health care centers that vaccinate with complete disregard for the truth about what they are actually doing to people, are not delivering a sound product that can be trusted and relied upon by those who hope to have their health guarded and restored.

Terveydenhuollolla ei enää ole mitään tekemistä terveyden kanssa. Se on lääkeyhtiöiden vallassa ja voitontavoittelua.

References:

1. Kelsall, John T. et. al. Microscopic Polyangiitis After Influenza Vaccination, Journal of Rheumatology. Vol.24:6, pp1198-1202.

2. Tenpenny, Dr Sherri J, FOWL! Bird Flu: It’s not what you think, 2006, pg. 74.

3. Yanai-Barar, et al., Influenza vaccination induced leukocytoclastic vasculitis and pauci-immune crescentic glomerulonephritis. Clinical Nephrology, vol 58. No. 3/2002

4. Damjanov, Ivan, Progression of Renal Disease in Henoch-Schonlein Purpura After Influenza Vaccination, JAMA 1979, vol. 242, No.23. p2555-2556.

5. Ulm, S et. al., Leukocytoclastic vasculitis and acute renal failure after influenza vaccination in an elderly patient with myelodysplastic syndrome., Onkoligie, 2006, vol. 29, No. 10, 470-2.

6. Tavadia, S, Leukocytoclastic vasculitis and influenza vaccination. Clin Exp Dermatol., 2003, vol 28, No 2, 154-6.

7. Kielstein, JT, Minimal Change nephrotic syndrome in a 65-year-old patient following influenza vaccination.,Clin Nephrol, 2000, vol 54, no 3, 246-8.

8. Narendran, M, Systemic Vasculitis following influenza vaccination—report of 3 cases and literature review., J Rheumatol, 1993, vol 20, no 8, 1429-31.

. Popular Articles
The Truth about the Flu Shot
What They Don’t Tell You About Vaccination Dangers Can Kill You or Ruin Your Life
Swine Flu and the Swine Flu Vaccine
Protecting Yourself Against Swine Flu
Vaccine May Be More Dangerous Than Swine Flu
Unvaccinated Children
The Truth about Flu Shots in Pregnancy
What to do If You Are Forced to Take Swine Flu Shot
Vaccination Statistics
Warning: Swine Flu Vaccine Coming Soon

Hemp Oil and Cancer

By Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
February 23, 2008

The American College of Physicians (ACP) issued a new policy statement last week endorsing medical marijuana use. The group is urging the government to reverse its ban on medical treatments using marijuana. "ACP encourages the use of non-smoked forms of THC (the main psychoactive element in marijuana) that have proven therapeutic value," the new policy statement said. The Philadelphia-based organization, the second largest doctors group in the United States, cited studies into marijuana’s medical applications such as treating severe weight loss associated with illnesses such as AIDS, and treating nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy for cancer patients.[i]

Medical marijuana is becoming more and more associated with anti-carcinogenic effects, which are responsible in preventing or delaying the development of cancer. This means that cannabinoids offer cancer patients a therapeutic option in the treatment of highly invasive cancers. Before we look at the hard medical science that sustains these statements go to http://www.youtube.com/chrychek to see a series of videos that will convince you of the validity of these statements on cancer. The American College of Physicians wants it made legal as do millions of other people. If you or one of your loved ones every get cancer you will be wishing that the government would begin to listen to this medical organization.
12 Million new cases of Cancer Diagnosed in 2007 in the US. In addition Cancer also killed 8 million people worldwide in 2007
- American Cancer Society
After reading the science and watching this video series I am certain that any sane person with cancer or any late stage chronic disease will want free and legal access to hemp oil with a maximum concentration of THC, the active ingredient that is illegal in most places in the world. [ii]

The medical science is strongly in favor of THC laden hemp oil as a primary cancer therapy, not just in a supportive role to control the side effects of chemotherapy. The International Medical Verities Association is putting hemp oil on its cancer protocol. It is a prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate. It makes perfect sense to drop hemp oil right into the middle of this nutritional crossfire of anti cancer medicines, which are all available without prescription.

Hemp oil has long been recognised as one of the most versatile and beneficial substances known to man. Derived from hemp seeds (a member of the achene family of fruits) it has been regarded as a superfood due to its high essential fatty acid content and the unique ratio of omega3 to omega6 and gamma linolenic acid (GLA) - 2:5:1. Hemp oil, is known to contain up to 5% of pure GLA, a much higher concentration than any other plant, even higher than spirulina. For thousands of years, the hemp plant has been used in elixirs and medicinal teas because of its healing properties and now medical science is zeroing in on the properties of its active substances.

Both the commercial legal type of hemp oil and the illegal THC laden hemp oil are one of the most power-packed protein sources available in the plant kingdom. Its oil can be used in many nutritional and transdermal applications. In other chapters in my Winning the War on Cancer book we will discuss in-depth about GLA and cancer and also the interesting work of Dr. Johanna Budwig. She uses flax seed oil instead of hemp oil to cure cancer - through effecting changes in cell walls - using these omega3 and omega6 laden medicinal oils.

Hemp oil can cheaply and effectively
deliver a knock out blow to ones cancer.

Actually there is another way to use medical marijuana without smoking the leaf. According to Dr. Tod H. Mikuriya, “The usual irritating and toxic breakdown products of burning utilized with smoking are totally avoided with vaporization. Extraction and inhaling cannabinoid essential oils below ignition temperature of both crude and refined cannabis products affords significant mitigation of irritation to the oral cavity, and tracheobronchial tree from pyrollytic breakdown products.[iii]

Most evaluations place the hot air gun style
vaporizer above other methods.

Dr. Mikuriya continues saying “The usual irritating and toxic breakdown products of burning utilized with smoking are totally avoided with vaporization. Extraction and inhaling cannabinoid essential oils below ignition temperature of both crude and refined cannabis products affords significant mitigation of irritation to the oral cavity, and tracheobronchial tree from pyrollytic breakdown products.”[iv]

Rick Simpson, the man in the above mentioned videos, has been making hemp oil and sharing it with friends and neighbors without charging for it. In small doses, he says, it makes you well without getting you high. "Well you can't deny your own eyes can you?" Simpson asks. "Here's someone dying of cancer and they're not dying anymore. I don't care if the medicine comes from a tomato plant, potato plant or a hemp plant, if the medicine is safe and helps and works, why not use it?" he asks.

When a person has cancer and is dying this question reaches a critical point. The bravery of Rick Simpson from Canada in showing us how to make hemp oil for ourselves offers many people a hope that should be increasingly appreciated as money dries up for expensive cancer treatments. We are going to need inexpensive medicines in the future and there is nothing better than the ones we can make reasonably cheaply ourselves.

For most people in the world it is illegal so the choice could come down to breaking the law or dying. There is no research to indicate what advantages oral use of hemp oil vs. vaporization but we can assume that advantage would be nutritional with oral intake. Dr. Budwig Below work would sustain this point of view especially for cancer patients.

The Science

According to Dr. Robert Ramer and Dr. Burkhard Hinz of the University of Rostock in Germany medical marijuana can be an effective treatment for cancer.[v] Their research was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access on December 25th of 2007 in a paper entitled Inhibition of Cancer Cell Invasion by Cannabinoids via Increased Expression of Tissue Inhibitor of Matrix Metalloproteinases-1.

The biggest contribution of this breakthrough discovery, is that the expression of TIMP-1 was shown to be stimulated by cannabinoid receptor activation and to mediate the anti-invasive effect of cannabinoids. Prior to now the cellular mechanisms underlying this effect were unclear and the relevance of the findings to the behavior of tumor cells in vivo remains to be determined.
Regulatory agencies unfortunately are
unresponsive to new scientific evidence.

Marijuana cuts lung cancer tumor growth in half, a 2007 Harvard Medical School study shows.[vi] The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.

This is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy. THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors.

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine. Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation.

Researchers reported in the August 15, 2004 issue of Cancer Research, the journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, that marijuana's constituents inhibited the spread of brain cancer in human tumor biopsies.[vii] In a related development, a research team from the University of South Florida further noted that THC can also selectively inhibit the activation and replication of gamma herpes viruses. The viruses, which can lie dormant for years within white blood cells before becoming active and spreading to other cells, are thought to increase one's chances of developing cancers such as Kaposi's Sarcoma, Burkitt's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease.[viii]

In 1998, a research team at Madrid's Complutense University discovered that THC can selectively induce programmed cell death in brain tumor cells without negatively impacting surrounding healthy cells. Then in 2000, they reported in the journal Nature Medicine that injections of synthetic THC eradicated malignant gliomas (brain tumors) in one-third of treated rats, and prolonged life in another third by six weeks.[ix]

Led by Dr. Manuel Guzman the Spanish team announced they had destroyed incurable brain cancer tumors in rats by injecting them with THC. They reported in the March 2002 issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC.[x]

Researchers at the University of Milan in Naples, Italy, reported in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics that non-psychoactive compounds in marijuana inhibited the growth of glioma cells in a dose-dependent manner, and selectively targeted and killed malignant cells through apoptosis. “Non-psychoactive CBD produce[s] a significant anti-tumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent.”[xi]

The first experiment documenting pot's anti-tumor effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest of the U.S. government. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's psychoactive component, THC, "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."[xii]

Funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia. The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research even though the researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

"Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute reports, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."
Marijuana relieves pain that narcotics like morphine and OxyContin
have hardly any effect on, and could help ease suffering from
illnesses such as multiple sclerosis, diabetes and cancer.[xiii]
According to Devra Davis in her book Secret History of the War on Cancer, 1.5 million lives have been lost because Americans failed to act on existing knowledge about the environmental causes of cancer. It is impossible to calculate the added deaths from suppressed ‘cancer cures’ but we do know of the terrible suffering of hundreds of thousands of people who have been jailed for marijuana use.

Hemp oil with THC included has the making of a primary cancer treatment, which even alone seems to have a great chance of turning the tide against cancer tumors. It has the added advantage of safety, ease of use, lack of side effects and low cost if one makes it oneself. Surrounded by other medicinal anti-cancer substances in a full protocol it’s hard to imagine anyone failing and falling in their war on cancer.
THC should be included in every cancer protocol.
Sodium bicarbonate is another excellent anti tumor substance that reduces tumors but is much more difficult to administer than THC hemp oil. Cannabinoids are able to pass through all barriers in the body like Alpha Lipoic Acid so simple oral intake is sufficient. With bicarbonate we need intravenous applications and often even this is not sufficient, often we have to use catheters and few doctors in the world are willing to administer this way.

In the end all cancer treatments that are not promoted by mainstream oncology are illegal. No licensed doctor is going to claim that are curing cancer with sodium bicarbonate though they will treat people with cancer explaining they are balancing pH or some other metabolic profile with this common emergency room medicine found also most kitchens of the world. More than several states have passed laws making medical marijuana legal but the federal government will not relax and let people be free to choose their treatments even if their lives depend on it.

Davis notes that the cowardice of research scientists, who publish thoroughly referenced reports but pull their punches at the end, by claiming that more research needs to be done before action can be taken. Statements like these are exploited by industry that buys time to make much more money. It is a deliberate attempt that creates wholesale public doubt from small data gaps and remaining scientific uncertainties.

They have done that with everything right up to and including sunlight. Everything is thought to be dangerous except the pharmaceutical drugs which are the most dangerous substances of all. Stomach wrenching chemotherapy and the death principle of radiation are legal yet safe THC laden hemp oil is not.

It is legal for doctors to attack people with their poisons but you can go to jail for trying to save yourself or a loved one from cancer with the oil of a simple garden weed. Our civilization has put up with this insanity but there is a great price being paid. In a mad medical world people die that need not and this is a terrible sadness that has destroyed the integrity and ethics of modern medicine.

The science for the use of hemp oil is credible, specific fact-based, and is documented in detail.[xiv] There is absolutely no reason to not legalize medical marijuana and create an immediate production and distribution of THC hemp oil to cancer patients. Unfortunately we live in a world populated with governments and medical henchmen who would rather see people die cruel deaths then have access to a safe and effect cancer drug.

Meanwhile the Food and Drug Administration approved Genentech’s best-selling drug, Avastin, as a treatment for breast cancer, in a decision, according to the New York Times, “that appeared to lower the threshold somewhat for approval of certain cancer drugs. The big question was whether it was enough for a drug temporarily to stop cancer from worsening — as Avastin had done in a clinical trial — or was it necessary for a drug to enable patients to live longer, which Avastin had failed to do. Oncologists and patient advocates were divided, in part because of the drug’s sometimes severe side effects.”[xv]

The differences between Avastin and hemp oil are huge. First Avastin will earn Genentech hundreds of millions where THC hemp oil will earn no one anything. Second there are no severe or even mild side effects to taking hemp oil and lastly it is not a temporary answer but a real solution. Certainly hemp oil will ensure a longer life.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and recent candidate for president of the United States ordered the state Health Department in 2007 to resume planning of a medical marijuana program despite the agency's worries about possible federal prosecution. However, the governor stopped short of committing to implement a state-licensed production and distribution system for the drug because State employees could face federal prosecution for implementing the law, which took effect in July. Now that he is being pursued perhaps for the office of vice-president[xvi] things could get interesting on a federal level. We can only hope but for now to get THC hemp oil one would have to grow the plants and make the oil oneself. It is not too difficult to do it seems but it is not exactly the safest thing because of laws and the cooking off of the oils.

Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
Director International Medical Veritas Association
http://www.imva.info
http://www.magnesiumforlife.com
http://www.winningcancer.com

[i] http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1259095/doctor_group_endorses_medica...

[ii] The confusion and concern often arises due to the fact that hemp seed/oil is derived from the plant Cannabis sativa, which is often incorrectly linked to the psychoactive substance, marijuana. The psychoactive ingredient of marijuana is the chemical THC, however the quantities of THC in hemp oil are so small that they are regarded as insignificant. In fact, for commercial hemp oil products to comply with Government regulations, they must contain less than 10ppm THC, which is very, very little. However, in the majority of products absolutely none can be detected. It would be almost impossible for this level of THC intake to measure even close to illegal levels during a drug urine test.

[iii] http://www.mikuriya.com/can_vapor.html

[iv] http://www.mikuriya.com/vc_multimedia.html

[v] http://salem-news.com/articles/january112008/cancer_treatment_11008.php

[vi] http://www.primidi.com/2004/09/05.html

[vii] http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-08/aafc-mii081204.php

[viii] http://steveridenour.com/My_Homepage_Files/Page5.html

[ix] Vol. 299, Issue 3, 951-959, December 2001- Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

[x] http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/vital/hemp/cancer2.html All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation. Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats.

[xi] Massi et al. 2004. Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics Fast Forward 308: 838-845.

[xii] http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/20008/

[xiii] Lester Grinspoon, an emeritus professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is the coauthor of "Marijuana, the Forbidden Medicine http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/48749/

[xiv] http://safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

[xv] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/business/23drug.html?th&emc=th

[xvi] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23richardson.html?_r=1&th&...

Reference for THC hemp medical history - http://www.hoboes.com/Politics/Prohibition/Notes/Forbidden/

more interesting articles, some of them in spanish
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons.htm#co...

Arabimaailman äänitorvi Al Jazeera vaatii tutkintaa WHO:n toiminnasta
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/01/20101111330498806.html

WHO Pushes Antivirals, Gives Contradictory Evidence At A Virtual Press Conference
A virtual press conference held on November 12, 2009 is adding to the speculation that the World Health Organization (WHO) is misleading the world and purposely withholding evidence of changes that may have occurred on the H1N1 virus.

A transcript of the conference shows that the Medical Officer of the Global Influenza Programme, Dr. Nikki Shindo, is pushing antivirals while providing multiple levels of disinformation and failing to provide specific information relating to sequencing data which could expose even small changes of a mutated H1N1 strain.

For clarity, reporter's questions and Dr. Nikki Shido's responses are in bold emphasis below:

Dr Shindo: In a country where the virus is circulating, we have 3 updated recommendations.

1. Firstly, people in at-risk groups need to be treated with antivirals as soon as possible when they have flu symptoms. This includes pregnant women, children under 2 years old, and people with “underlying conditions” such as respiratory problems.

2. Secondly, people who are not from the at-risk group but who have persistent or rapidly worsening symptoms should also be treated with antivirals. These symptoms include difficulty breathing and a high fever that lasts beyond 3 days.

3. Thirdly, people who have already developed pneumonia should be given both antivirals and antibiotics, as we have seen that, in many severe cases of H1N1-caused illness, bacterial infection develops. These medicines, antivirals and antibiotics, if used in a timely manner, can help save lives.

Tamiflu and other antivirals lower body temperatures. They make people (who can still transmit the virus) asymptomatic for longer periods and can therefore be expected to facilitate and contribute to the spread of the pandemic. If populations begin taking Tamiflu as a preventive measure, it could potentially cause the reverse of the intended effect, causing an explosion of viral transmission.

Emerging evidence in mammals is suggesting that the blood-brain barrier (BBB) in children may not be fully developed until 18 to 24 months of age. Due to the uncertainty in predicting exposure until the BBB is fully developed, Tamiflu SHOULD NOT be given to children under two years of age, directly contradicting Dr. Shindo's comments in the first update recommendation.

Tamilfu has not been studied at all in children under 1 year of age. Even the Tamiflu website itself does not give dosage recommendations for children under 1 year of age.

Just as the WHO, some public health associations such as the Canadian Public Health Association (an independent voice for public health in Canada), are attempting to mislead government health agencies into a false perception that Tamiflu is now safe for children under 1. Health Canada has concluded that the known and potential benefits of Tamiflu outweigh the known and potential risks for children under 1 year of age.

The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) alerted Physicians that Tamiflu can put some people at greater risk of suffering a stroke, a condition that is often fatal or far worse prognosis than any flu symptom.

Numerous reports and studies have already linked Tamiflu to dozens of deaths worldwide in apparently very health children. The British Medical Journal reported that children with seasonal flu should not be given Tamiflu because harmful side effects may outweigh relatively meager benefits.

The WHO stated on their own website that they have reported a high rate of resistance to Tamiflu. A total of 30 countries from all WHO regions reported Tamiflu (oseltamivir) resistance for H1N1.

Despite the adverse reactions of antivirals such as Tamiflu consistently reporting Pneumonia and Respiratory Failure, the WHO and Dr. Nikki Shido 's recommendation is to administer antivirals to people who have already developed pneumonia, an endorsement that could potentially promote millions of fatalities. The statement that "the medicine needs to be administered before the virus destroys the lungs," is not based on any medical literature or evidence from any scientific studies completed on Tamiflu in humans.

Dr Shindo: ...the risk factors for the previously healthy people to have the progressive or severe disease it is incompletely understood. It was pointed out that perhaps obesity especially morbid obesity could
play a role.

If the progress of the disease and its severity are not completely understood, then why are recommendations being made for antivirals when their adverse reactions are well-documented?

By stating that obesity and morbid obesity are playing roles in the disease, the WHO is psychologically conditioning the media and medical establishments that the populations who have a higher percentage of obesity and morbid obesity (specifically the U.S.) will have an increased severity of infections and deaths attributed to this cause.

Assistant Surgeon General, Anne Schuchat, has made several references in the past regarding this supposed phenomenon and link between H1N1 and obesity. She is also one of the primary myth propagators who has publicized H1N1 vaccine facts as myths and myths as facts, and was an instrumental figure in Fox News' biased reporting which urged all pregnant women to submit to the seasonal flu vaccine and the H1N1 vaccine during the pandemic.

Dr Shindo: ...The virus is quite stable. It hasn't changed - the disease pattern did not change either.....Amazingly this virus is very stable and part of the reason, virologists (are saying) is because of the lack of pre-existing immunity in population so that virus doesn't have to mutate to escape from people's immunity. So it's quite stable.

If the virus is so stable and unchanged:

How did 1 million people in the Ukraine become infected in less than a week? The H1N1 viral transmission rates were a snail's pace compared to the situation in the Ukraine where infections doubled every day for 4 days straight.

Why have virologists concluded that this combination of infections may produce an even more aggressive new virus as a result of mutation?

Why are there news agencies reporting that flu viruses have mutated into a single pneumonic plague?

Why were infectious disease specialists such as Dr. Donald Lau quoted saying that "the high viral transmission rates are extremely unusual for H1N1 and there is almost certainly some type of new virus, or a lethal recombination that has occurred..." ???

Aline Gobel, CBC: Could you provide us with information on the risk factors. Who gets sick and who dies from the virus. A few months ago we were told that young people were the most target of this new virus, and now it seems that the Lancet for instance is talking about old people dying of the virus more than young people. On the same line, in Canada, we have a debate in Quebec especially on the priority for vaccination. For people with underlying medical conditions, in Quebec the vaccination is given in priority to people under 65. Does WHO recommend that all people with underlying conditions get the vaccine in priority whether they are over 65 or under 65.

Dr Shindo: ....If you look at hospitalization rate, it is highest in the age group younger than 2 years of age. This information has been compiled from the experiences in countries in the southern hemisphere who just finished their winter. This is one group that you can expect high hospitalization. Also the second group is the pregnant women. The pregnant women is about 4-5 fold at risk of hospitalization and in severe cases it comprises about 7-10% of ICU hospitalizations. So this is the second biggest at-risk group. And the third one is the chronic medical condition, first comes the chronic lung disease group, especially chronic obstructive lung disease including asthma. So they have high probability of developing severe disease and as we collect more date from countries especially from southern
hemisphere countries the risk factors become very similar to the risk factors for seasonal influenza but we still don't have many reports of severe cases in a higher or older age groups, namely over 60 years
old or older. But it is true that severity shifts to the older age groups. If we talk about the case count then the highest is very young adults and children. But if you look at hospitalization, the median age is about 20-35 and then the more severe cases 35-45 so almost 10 years age shift towards the more severe cases. So that is true...

Notice how the WHO provides long winding responses when asked about age demographics relating to the pandemic. They make ridiculous attempts to fabricate data in every age group and constantly contradict themselves as the months pass, as noted by the reporter.

To date, there are NO well-documented case studies in any country that established pregnant women as having an increased risk for pandemic flu. Globally, the effects of the H1N1 swine flu virus have been relatively mild and it has behaved no differently than any other influenza virus, specifically in the southern hemisphere as noted in this report on the CDC website.

"No significant differences were observed between the groups of patients that were admitted versus outpatients in terms of age, sex, number of days from initiation of fever to first hospital visit, and history of influenza vaccination. A total of 163 (98%) of 166 patients admitted to the hospital during the observation period were discharged with no further complications."

Notice how heath officials in Argentina make no reference in this report to higher hospitalizations in children or pregnant women as Dr. Shindo suggests. Any information Dr. Shindo refers to are statistical anomalies which have been falsified by the WHO to suit their objectives.

Terry Rees: Is there any merit to doing things to boost the immune system.

Dr Shindo: We have been asking our clinical network to evaluate but so far we have zero product included in the current recommendation.

Asking the WHO about products to boost the immune system is equivalent to asking the owner of a successful fishery to teach you how to catch fish so you can compete against him. Promoters of disease, such as the WHO, are not interested in natural effective solutions to prevent disease. They never have and never will be precisely because they are so effective.

To reduce the probability of infection and death, It is extremely important for people to adopt an opposing view to the specifics in Dr. Shindo's key message which was "we would like to focus on prevention of severe disease with early treatment."

To boost and optimize your immune system, stick to Natural Protection, immune strengthening herbs and nutrients such as vitamins A, C, D, E and minerals such as calcium, magnesium and zinc. There are also many other important antioxidant nutrients that support immune functioning. These include the carotenes, flavonoids and other polyphenols such as those found in green tea, grape seed, pine bark and various berry extracts. The best food sources of immune-enhancing nutrients are fresh fruits, vegetables, and mushrooms.

Immune Strengthening Herbs and Nutrients

Immune stimulant herbs can boost immune functioning in the short term. They may also be used to treat infections in progress. Some of the most versatile immune stimulants include the various species of purple coneflower root and herb (Echinacea spp.), plantain herb (Plantago spp.), elecampane root (Inula helenium), pot marigold flowers (Calendula officinalis), boneset herb (Eupatorium perfoliatum), black elder flower (Sambucus nigra), stinging nettle herb (Urtica dioica) and goldenrod herb (Solidago spp.). To support immune function, combine three or four of these herbs and take them three to four times per day for one to two week intervals. For best results, this should be repeated once or twice, each time after a one to two week break. This protocol can be used to help boost your immune response, which can prevent illness or lessen the severity if you do get sick.

Virus-Fighting Herbs

There are many herbs that attack viruses directly, which can be used together with immune stimulants by anyone who contracts the ‘flu or some other viral infection. Some of the immune stimulants mentioned above are also antiviral, including purple coneflower, pot marigold and black elder. Other important antiviral herbs include yarrow herb (Achillea millefolium), hyssop herb (Hyssopus officinalis), lemon balm herb (Melissa officinalis), St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) marjoram herb (Origanum majorana), oregano herb (Origanum vulgare), heal-all herb (Prunella vulgaris), rosemary herb (Rosmarinus officinalis) and blue vervain herb (Verbena hastata).

If you think you might have influenza, combine two to three herbs from among the immune stimulants with two to three herbs from the antivirals. It is important to begin taking the herbs as soon as you think you are getting sick. Take your formulation four to six times per day until you are better.

Deep Acting Immune Tonics

Another group of herbs that help to improve and optimize immune function are the immune tonics. These herbs are deeper acting than immune stimulants, but take longer to work. They include North American ginseng root (Panax quinquefolius), lacquered polypore or reishi mushroom (Ganoderma lucidum), artist’s conk (Ganoderma applanatum), Chinese milkvetch root (Astragalus membranaceus) and Siberian ginseng root (Eleutherococcus senticosus). Combine two or three immune tonics and take them three to four times per day for two to three months. Immune tonics are not suitable for treating infections in progress. They are used for preventive purposes or to optimize immune function and work best after first doing several cycles of immune stimulants.

Silver hydrosols, in general, are superior powerful broad spectrum anti-microbials. They have been scientifically proven safe, effective, and life-saving in hospitals and health clinics when used sparingly according to health and environmentally-conscious recommendations. These powerful health guards provide a wide range of practical applications as alternatives to humanly toxic and environmental destructive chemical disinfectants, poisonous antibiotics, and risky vaccinations.

You cannot prevent this disease with antiviral treatments. Once this virus hits North America, any attempts to resort to conventional medicine, including antivirals and vaccines will dramatically increase the incidence of infection and death.

Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.

The CDC and WHO March Forward With
Further Manipulation of Swine Flu Data
Nearly A Quarter Million Flu Cases in Belarus:
WHO Remains Silent on Ukraine Plague
Deadly Swine Flu Recombination
Predicted by American Doctor
Number of Influenza, ARI and Hospitalized
Cases In The Ukraine Exceed 1 Million
Ukraine Health Minister Says New Strain
of H1N1 Swine Flu: Possible Mutation
Ukraine Declares Martial Law
Following Pneumonic Plague Outbreak
WHO Continues To Deceive: Assumes
That Ukraine Plague Is H1N1 Swine Flu
Ukrainian Government Imposing
Military Rule in Response To Pandemic
Ukraine's Pneumonic Plague: A New Strain
of Flu Many Times More Lethal Than H1N1

The Deaths of Four Ukraine Doctors Raising
Suspicions of a Cover-Up in The Ukraine
Ukraine In Panic Over Swine Flu
As WHO Team Analyzes Cases

A full list of h1n1 vaccine
ingredients, alerts and warnings.
More articles in the Flu Pandemic Archive

Public hearing on the handling of the Swine Flu pandemic

Strasbourg, 21.01.2010 – A public parliamentary hearing titled “The handling of the H1N1 pandemic: more transparency needed?” is to be held on the fringe of the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in Strasbourg from 8.15-10 a.m. on Tuesday 26 January, immediately followed by a press conference.

The hearing, organised by the Assembly’s Committee on Social, Health and Family Affairs, will bring together representatives of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and of European vaccine manufacturers, as well as independent medical experts, to discuss this topic with parliamentarians. Some members of the Assembly – including the outgoing Chair of PACE’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg (Germany, SOC)1 – requested in a motion in December that the Assembly look into this question.

The hearing is open to the press. Both hearing and press conference will be webcast live.

The Assembly may also hold an urgent debate on this topic on Thursday 28 January at 10 a.m., if it decides to do so when it adopts its agenda (around midday on Monday 25 January). In this case, the Assembly would debate and vote on a draft resolution.

Programme and list of participants (PDF)

Biographies of participants (PDF)

Motion by Mr Wodarg and others (PDF)

Session announcement

Practical arrangements

The hearing takes place from 8.15a.m. to 10a.m. in Room 1 of the Palais de l’Europe in Strasbourg, and is open to the press.

Media interested in attending are invited to request accreditation from Danielle Schreiber-Somoza of the Council of Europe’s Communication Directorate, e-mail danielle.schreiber-somoza@coe.int, tel. +33 3 88 41 25 44.

Video of both the hearing and the following press conference – in the original language and interpreted into English and French – will be webcast live via the following link: http://tv.coe.int/internet/press.html. Video recordings will also be available for download later.

If an urgent debate takes place on Thursday morning, this will also be webcast live from the following link: http://tv.coe.int/internet. Additional documentation is available on the Assembly’s website http://assembly.coe.int.

For further information, please contact Micaela Catalano, Francesc Ferrer, Angus Macdonald or Nathalie Bargellini of PACE’s Communication Division on e-mail pace.com@coe.int, tel. +33 (0)3 88 41 31 93.

1 . Following the recent parliamentary elections in Germany, Mr Wodarg ceases to be a member of the Assembly, and Chair of its Sub-committee on Health, on Monday 25 January. He will attend the hearing in an expert capacity.

Council of Europe Directorate of Communication
Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60
Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11
pressunit@coe.int
www.coe.int