From – Lifewise -

Fortunately, the Swiss National Advisory Commission on Biomedical Ethics (NEK, President: Otfried Höffe) critically commented on the use of the ADHD drug Ritalin in its opinion of 22 November 2011 titled Human enhancement by means of pharmacological agents: The consumption of pharmacological agents altered the child’s behavior without any contribution on his or her part.

That amounted to interference in the child’s freedom and personal rights, because pharmacological agents induced behavioural changes but failed to educate the child on how to achieve these behavioural changes independently. The child was thus deprived of an essential learning experience to act autonomously and emphatically which “considerably curtails children’s freedom and impairs their personality development”, the NEK criticized.

The alarmed critics of the Ritalin disaster are now getting support from an entirely different side. The German weekly Der Spiegel quoted in its cover story on 2 February 2012 the US American psychiatrist Leon Eisenberg, born in 1922 as the son of Russian Jewish immigrants, who was the “scientific father of ADHD” and who said at the age of 87, seven months before his death in his last interview:

“ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease”

Since 1968, however, some 40 years, Leon Eisenberg’s “disease” haunted the diagnostic and statistical manuals, first as “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood”, now called “ADHD”. The use of ADHD medications in Germany rose in only eighteen years from 34 kg (in 1993) to a record of no less than 1760 kg (in 2011) – which is a 51-fold increase in sales! In the United States every tenth boy among ten year-olds already swallows an ADHD medication on a daily basis. With an increasing tendency.

Leon Eisenberg

When it comes to the proven repertoire of Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, to sell the First World War to his people with the help of his uncle’s psychoanalysis and to distort science and the faith in science to increase profits of the industry – what about investigating on whose behalf the “scientific father of ADHD” conducted science? His career was remarkably steep, and his “fictitious disease” led to the best sales increases. And after all, he served in the “Committee for DSM V and ICD XII, American Psychiatric Association” from 2006 to 2009. After all, Leon Eisenberg received “the Ruane Prize for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Research. He has been a leader in child psychiatry for more than 40 years through his work in pharmacological trials, research, teaching, and social policy and for his theories of autism and social medicine”.

And after all, Eisenberg was a member of the “Organizing Committee for Women and Medicine Conference, Bahamas, November 29 – December 3, 2006, Josiah Macy Foundation (2006)”. The Josiah Macy Foundation organized conferences with intelligence agents of the OSS, later CIA, such as Gregory Bateson and Heinz von Foerster during and long after World War II. Have such groups marketed the diagnosis of ADHD in the service of the pharmaceutical market and tailor-made for him with a lot of propaganda and public relations? It is this issue that the American psychologist Lisa Cosgrove and others investigated in their study Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry7. They found that “Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on ‘Mood Disorders’ and ‘Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders’ had financial ties to drug companies. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders.” In the next edition of the manual, the situation is unchanged. “Of the 137 DSM-V panel members who have posted disclosure statements, 56% have reported industry ties – no improvement over the percent of DSM-IV members.” “The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry,” said Dr Irwin Savodnik, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California at Los Angeles.

This is well paid. Just one example: The Assistant Director of the Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School received “$1 million in earnings from drug companies between 2000 and 2007”. In any case, no one can easily get around the testimony of the father of ADHD: “ADHD is a prime example of a fictitious disease.”

The task of psychologists, educators and doctors is not to put children on the “chemical lead” because the entire society cannot handle the products of its misguided theories of man and raising children, and instead hands over our children to the free pharmaceutical market. Let us return to the basic matter of personal psychology and education: The child is to acquire personal responsibility and emphatic behaviour under expert guidance – and that takes the family and the school: In these fields, the child should be able to lead off mentally. This constitutes the core of the human person.

Sources:

1 Human enhancement by means of pharmacological agents, Opinion No 18/2011, Bern October 2011. http://www.bag.admin.ch/nek-cne/04229/04232/index.html?lang=en

2 Blech, Jörg: Schwermut ohne Scham. In: Der Spiegel, Nr. 6/6.2.12, p. 122–131, p. 128.

3 Blech, p. 127

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Eisenberg (6.2.2012)

5 http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/newsarticle.aspx?articleid=107051

6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Eisenberg (6.2.2012 17:59:25)

7 Cosgrove, Lisa et al. Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry. In: Psychother Psychosom 2006; 75:154-160 (DOI: 10.1159/000091772)

8 Cosgrove, Lisa et al. Pp. 154

9 DSM Panel Members Still Getting pharma funds. URL: http://www.cchrint.org/tag/lisa-cosgrove/ (8.2.2012 23:21:29)

10 http://www.emaxhealth.com/1357/7/35563/experts-who-write-dsm-have-financial-ties-pharmaceutical-companies.html 1

11 Cf. http://www.cchrint.org/tag/lisa-cosgrove/

http://southweb.org/lifewise/inventor-of-adhds-deathbed-confession-adhd-is-a-fictitiuos-disease/

By Steve Jolly – Infowars.com -

‘Airport-style’ harassment to “help people who use public transport feel safer.”

Travel by train, tram or bus to destinations in central England and you are increasingly likely to be greeted by Britain’s ‘yellowjackets’: the high-visibility uniforms of Britain’s police force.

Image: Sandwell Police

‘Airport-style’ security checkpoints are being rolled out at local bus and train stations up and down the UK after local pilot schemes conducted over the last two years were deemed a success by police.

The checkpoints comprise metal detector arches, drug-sniffing dogs , police pat-downs and bag searches. The reason? To “help people who use public transport feel safer.”

Over the last couple of years more and more of these ‘security’ checkpoints have been quietly introduced at local bus and train stations across the UK under a number of pretexts that simply don’t bear up to scrutiny.

One such stop-and-search operation last week (May 15th) at West Bromwich bus station in the West Midlands, was captured in this short video clip showing a police officer rifling through a man’s pockets [1] while he holds up his wallet for potential inspection. The other photographs here were tweeted by Sandwell Police on the day.

According to the police this operation and others like it are not related to the ongoing mission creep that police so often attempt to justify with their trump card of ‘terrorism’; instead they represent an increasing shift towards ‘pro-active’ policies which threaten to become a part of everyday policing in Britain today. This Youtube clip shows a ‘Day of Action’ by Sandwell Police, who took to Twitter to explain that,”the aim of this operation is to reduce crime and anti social behaviour and offer community reasurance (sic) and assist in any prosecutions,” [specifically to] “focus on drugs and anti-social behaviour.”

Quite how emptying people’s pockets can reduce ‘anti-social behaviour’ is not clear, but by the end of the day the police were busy tweeting the day’s results:

Image: Sandwell Police

“Drugs dog [2] at West Bromwich bus station. Lots of people stopped but no drugs found.”

The tweets continued, “We’ve had some nice feedback regarding our ‘day of action’. Thanks for your support. No crime has been reported in West Bromwich town today!”

So, with no drugs found and no crime of any kind reported, what possible value could there be in stopping and searching hundreds of law-abiding citizens? Perhaps the following tweet provides one of several possible answers: “20 people have been checked on the police national computer (PNC). Some have previous convictions for robbery so intelligence has [been] submitted.”

Leaving aside the obvious injustice of stopping and searching everybody ‘just in case’ one or two people turn out to be guilty of some wrongdoing, these indiscriminate fishing expeditions are neither an effective way to ‘catch criminals’ nor to ‘keep us safe’.

Last week’s ‘day of action’ at West Bromwich bus station is by no means a one-off, and this apparently crime-free bus station is no stranger to such police operations. In 2010 Sandwell Police launched a ‘Safer Travel’ scheme called Safer Six, a pilot scheme carried out in six towns across the region over a six week period spanning October and November. It too was branded as a “community reassurance” exercise designed “to help people who use public transport feel safer,” as one local Sergeant put it. More specifically the police explained, “Our aim is to detect people who are carrying weapons.” This video [3] shows the travelling public being herded through a metal detector arch (often described by police in Orwellian terms, as “safety arches”) before being stopped, searched and sniffed up by a police drugs dog. The operation was repeated in the autumn of 2011 and again in 2012 and was considered so successful that it is now being rolled out across the entire West Midlands region on a permanent basis. A press release [4] by West Midlands Police in January 2013 states that:

“Airport-style metal detectors popped-up at West Bromwich bus station yesterday as a police blitz on knife crime continued. Around 500 commuters of all ages passed through the portable devices – known by police as knife arches – in just four hours.”

Image: Sandwell Police

Just how successful was the operation then? Well, about as ‘successful’ as last week’s ‘day of action’:

“No knives or other illegal items were recovered in the operation. No arrests were made,” the press release reveals.

Perhaps all the knife-wielding criminals managed to avoid detection by not using buses and trains for the full six weeks? Well no, it seems that knife-wielding criminals are a bit thin on the ground in West Bromwich, as the police acknowledged:

“The decision to set up the knife arches in West Bromwich wasn’t based on there being large instances of knife crime in the town, but part of an ongoing and broader safety programme which will be replicated at bus, tram and train stations across the entire West Midlands in the coming days.”

Once again we are told that we must sacrifice our rights and freedoms in the name of ‘safety’, even though police admit that the supposed risk of harm is somewhat negligible and not the real focus of the operation anyway.

If the success of the operation is not judged by the number of arrests made, or the quantity of drugs and weapons seized, or the number of dangerous criminals taken off the streets, then what is the purpose of these exercises? Perhaps the phrase “public reassurance” could be more accurately expressed another way. How about “conditioning the public to accept the ever-growing police state by normalising such unnecesssary and demeaning security theatre.” Or “exploiting dubious safety fears to deprive citizens of their fundamental rights and freedoms.” Or how about “inverting the centuries-old fundamental legal principle that we are all ‘innocent until proven guilty’ by treating us all as suspects, demanding that we prove our innocence.” I could go on…

The following line from a well known novel accurately describes policing in Britain today:

          “For distances of less than 100 kilometres it was not necessary to get your passport endorsed, but sometimes there were patrols hanging about the railway stations, who examined the papers of any Party member they found there and asked awkward questions.”

                                                                    (George Orwell – Nineteen Eighty-Four).

The truth is that these police operations aim to condition the public to accept, submit and grow accustomed to what is essentially an unlawful stop and search.

Section 1 of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act) [5] does allow ‘Stop and Search’, but only if the police have ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect that someone has committed a crime, as explained in PACE Code of Practice ‘Code A’ (.pdf) [6]. The Code says, “There must be an objective basis for that suspicion based on facts, information, and/or intelligence which are relevant to the likelihood of finding an article of a certain kind” and “Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on generalisations or stereotypical images of certain groups or categories of people” [such as 'users of public transport'] “as more likely to be involved in criminal activity.”

A police officer needs ‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect you are carrying a weapon, drugs or stolen goods, or that you are a terrorist. Can any of these justifications be applied to an entire arrivals terminal at a transport hub? No, of course not.

Since checkpoints like these are being applied en masse to people whom the police have absolutely no “reasonable grounds” to suspect of criminality, the police cannot lawfully compel people to submit to such searches. Therefore the public must be doing so “voluntarily,” although somehow I suspect that they are not told this.

In the upside-down Orwellian world that we now inhabit, the only real criminals identified at West Bromwich bus station during their ‘day of action’ are the police themselves. Substitute the term ‘brownshirts’ for ‘yellowjackets’ and you get the picture.

To quote the Russian novelist who provided the original inspiration for George Orwell’s dystopian classic, ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’:

“When a man’s freedom is reduced to zero, he commits no crimes. That’s clear. The only means to rid man of crime is to rid him of freedom.”

- Yevgeny Zamyatin, ‘We’. Steve Jolly is a campaigner, journalist and spokesman for the campaign group No CCTV. He has written for the London Guardian, Big Brother Watch and Infowars. His successful campaign against ‘Project Champion’ – a police surveillance operation in Birmingham UK – forced the Chief constable to publicly apologise, scrap the scheme and remove 216 surveillance cameras from parts of the city. He was nominated for a Human Rights Award in 2010 and appeared before the UK parliament to give evidence on the Protection of Freedoms Bill about new CCTV laws. Steve writes and gives media interviews about camera surveillance and related issues.

——————————————————————-

[1] Youtube video:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UX7QXzJf8&feature=youtu.be

[2] Photo on Sandwell Police Twitter feed: pic.twitter.com/Wa1zuw08Tf

[3] Youtube video fof Safer Six operation by Sandwell Police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB7y1SloHyM

[4] Press release by Sandwell Police: http://www.west-midlands.police.uk/np/sandwell/news/newsitem.asp?id=11884

[5] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/1

[6] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-a-2011?view=Binary

http://www.infowars.com/papers-please-tsa-style-checkpoints-at-uk-bus-train-stations/

By James Cusick – The Independent -

Whether it’s the shape-shifting group of reptilian descendants from the constellation Draco who control humanity, or the shadowy cabal of powerful financiers and politicians who covertly run all governments, conspiracy theorists are once again preparing for their annual jamboree of protest against those who really rule the world, this year in the highly secretive destination of… Watford.

From – Thinking Moms’ Revolution -

I’m going to assume intellectual honesty here and commend the poster for actually caring about children’s health. If that’s true, and this person posted this because he cares — not because he’s making pots of money on his investments in pharmaceutical companies, or he’s getting paid to tout their safety in public forums, or he’s a physician who simply cannot accept the truth of the harm that he’s done in the name of the “greater good” — then that’s a huge positive. That means that this person might have an open enough mind to actually listen when confronted with evidence that children are being harmed on a massive scale by the practice of vaccination.

The meme essentially says that children should be forcibly vaccinated — whether or not it is okay with their parents — in order to “protect” them.

What’s wrong with this?

Well, first off, it is a fact that some people are harmed by vaccines. If not, vaccines would not be classified by the U.S. government as “unavoidably unsafe”, and there would be no Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), or Vaccine Court that has awarded over $2.5 billion dollars to date to victims of vaccine damage, including at least 83 children with autism, and no withdrawal of a vaccine from the marketplace. A quick perusal of the VAERS system will show that every vaccine comes with at least a small risk of injury, potentially catastrophic injury, or even death. It would be one thing, perhaps, if we were talking about a treatment for a condition that is sure to kill a child, or even likely to, like a malignant brain tumor, for instance. One might be willing to take on that risk, or even force someone else do so, to avoid likely death. But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? Vaccines are about prevention, and prevention of something that is usually of short duration with few complications. So in the name of preventing one condition, you (I’m talking to the meme poster here) insist that a parent and child take on the risks of other, possibly much more devastating conditions. Why do you get to decide what’s an acceptable risk for someone else’s child?

Nearly 50% of children today are living with chronic illness. The number of long-term illnesses that ravage whole families — physically, emotionally, and economically — has risen rapidly as the vaccine schedule has exploded. Children born in the 1960s received far fewer vaccines than children do today. Most children today receive many more vaccines in their first year, when their bodies are not yet capable of producing antibodies, than my generation expected to receive in our whole lifetimes (the flu shot has complicated that expectation). Common sense would indicate that if those two facts coincide in time — the rise in chronic illness, including autism, and the rise in vaccination rates — there is a likely correlation. What’s more, there’s good reason to consider that the risk is cumulative, meaning that the more vaccines given, the more likely it is that damage will be sustained. No, that’s not proof. What it is is an indication that caution and more study are in order. Is that how “medical professionals” have reacted? With caution and more study? Unfortunately, the answer to that is a resounding, “Hell, no!” The CDC is still adding to the already overloaded vaccine schedule. The schedule my daughter, born in 1999, faced was ridiculous, but far lighter than it is today. And there has never been one study done on the safety of the vaccine schedule as a whole. Not one.

I was arguing with a woman last night who is certain that antibiotics and formula feeding play heavily into the autism epidemic, but that vaccines don’t. I fully support the idea that antibiotics play a crucial role in the development of many cases of autism, but antibiotics have been heavily overprescribed for my entire lifetime. They cannot be solely responsible for the huge recent upsurge in cases of chronic illness in children. Similarly, breastfeeding rates were actually much lower back in the ‘50s and ‘60s (inspiring the creation of the La Leche League in 1956) when the autism rate was still 1 in 10,000, than they are today. (“A 1994 Canadian government health survey found that 73% of Canadian mothers initiated breastfeeding, up from 38% in 1963.” “A 2003 La Leche League International study found that 72% of Canadian mothers initiate breastfeeding and that 31% continue to do so past four to five months.”  My mother, born in 1922, was told she had “the wrong kind of nipples” to breastfeed, hence I and my seven siblings were formula-fed. My sister, whose children were born in 1967 and 1970, was actively discouraged from breastfeeding and gave up when she got mastitis. My 14-year-old daughter, on the other hand, was nursed for three years, and my 6-year-old son for four. I think my family is indicative of overall societal trends. Antibiotic use and formula feeding cannot account for what we are seeing.

So (back to the meme poster) you’re willing to force children to take on the risks of vaccination in order to “protect” them. Where do you draw the line? Or do you draw a line at all: All children should be vaccinated with anything that is okayed by the CDC and put on the vaccine schedule? After all, they’re the “medical professionals,” right?

What about illnesses that are almost always benign in children, like chicken pox and mumps? Do children need “protecting” from those? I got one mumps shot when I was 10 or 11 years old. I got the mumps right after that, and, since no one had informed my mother that it was a live-virus vaccine and could shed, I went swimming and gave it to another child as well. Soon after that I developed the allergies and asthma that have made my life miserable on numerous occasions. Those conditions made me a freak in the early ‘70s, even within my own family. I’m the seventh of eight. None of my older siblings had allergies or asthma, just my younger brother and I — the ones who, coincidentally, got that live-virus mumps shot. Allergies and asthma aren’t freakish now, when most kids have live-virus vaccines at the age of 12-15 months.

Here’s a hypothetical . . . What if the CDC were to approve a vaccine for an uncommon blood-borne illness, similar to AIDS and only transmitted by sex and dirty needles, for newborn babies – say, three doses in the first year of life? And what if whatever immunity the vaccine confers wears off by the time the child is fifteen years old? (In other words, it is highly unlikely that the average child will derive any benefit whatsoever from the vaccine.) And what if that vaccine was associated with a three-fold incidence of autism in boys? Would you force a newborn to have that vaccine?

Now I know what you’re thinking: Oh, come on! That’s a ridiculous hypothetical! The folks at the CDC are caring “medical professionals.” They would never approve that! They have only the well-being of the general public in mind. You know, I agree with you. It’s a ridiculous example. Only an extremely cynical group of money-grubbing folks, who didn’t give a damn about the health of the public they are charged “protect,” would do such a thing. Only . . . they did.

The hepatitis B vaccine is routinely administered on the first day of life in hospitals all over the United States. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne illness, transmitted in the same ways that AIDS is. There is virtually no chance that a newborn will encounter hepatitis B, unless the child’s mother is infected (easy enough to discover through a blood test). As a matter of fact, it is extremely unlikely that this child will encounter hepatitis B until he or she is having sex or sharing needles, traditionally unlikely till the teen years, wouldn’t you say? And yet, any immunity that the vaccine might confer is only good for about 15 years, and one study said 30-50% of subjects had no antibodies within seven years. In addition, the hepatitis B vaccine was associated with a three-fold risk of autism in a study conducted at Stonybrook University. It’s also a significant factor in the Verstraeten thimerosal study’s generation zero numbers. High levels of mercury content in vaccines (almost always including the hepatitis B) in the first month of life were associated with an 8-11 times higher risk of autism. The hepatitis B vaccine has also been known to kill babies. A good friend of us Thinking Moms had an apparently very healthy baby who was sent to the NICU immediately after hepatitis B vaccination. As the mother of a child who died in a NICU, this makes my blood run cold. If you’ve ever seen your newborn in a NICU, it would make your blood run cold, too.

So remind me again what this vaccination was for? Oh, yes! To “protect” my child. From something he was never going to encounter anyway.

I think it’s clear that the first priority of the CDC is not “protection” of my child. It is, however, my first priority. And I will do what it takes to protect my child, even if that means reading the studies behind the headlines; even if that means fighting with my “well-meaning” pediatrician; even if that means being called a wacko by people with far less understanding of science and logic than I have. Does that mean that I think I know more than “medical professionals” do? Damn straight, it does. Because I have made it my business to know. (This is not to say that there are not plenty of “medical professionals” who do make it their business to know as much as possible, but they tend to disagree with the CDC’s vaccine policies, too.) Why? Because I have a hell of a lot more to lose than they do. If a “medical professional” damages my child with a vaccine, that person bears absolutely no liability whatsoever for their decision, even if that vaccination is clearly contraindicated based on criteria contained in the vaccine insert. I, on the other hand, may have to live the rest of my life knowing that I allowed someone else to do something that harmed my child, all in the name of “protection.”

When I say that forcible vaccination of my children will happen only over my dead body, I mean that literally.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/in-the-name-of-protection/

By Marco Torres – Prevent Diseases, Waking Times -

Is it really that hard for most people to believe that we are being assaulted on a daily basis by chemical terrorism? Genetically modified foods, artificial flavours, colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners all made with toxic chemicals, all of which are proven toxic to human health. We are being bombarded on a daily basis by an astronomical level of toxicity, all controlled by these chemical terrorists on behalf of the food industry. Worse is we let them.

How many more toxins will we permit in our food supply before we stand united and simply say “we’ve had enough?” How long will it take until we assertively proclaim that we will not allow any more chemicals or toxins in our foods?

Since food and health regulators cannot properly do their job to protect the public, there will come a tipping point when the people will have to do it for them. We discuss toxic chemicals almost every day, but what percentage of the population is interested enough, curious enough or most of all disciplined enough to actually make the dietary changes necessary to rid all the toxins from the foods they eat? How many people can avoid all processed foods every single day? I would estimate that percentage to be extremely small. Barriers are typically societal pressure, convenience and income. The reality is that we could all have a safe and healthy food industry if we truly wanted it. There are just not enough of us that want it that badly….yet.

Every year or two we have a new chemical terrorist making its way into the food supply almost like clock work. Once the public becomes savvy to the harmful nature of the new toxin, it is then renamed, rebranded and often modified into a deadlier form than its predecessor. Aspartame and aminosweet, and high fructose corn syrup and corn sugar are two excellent examples.

Let’s take a look at some of the biggest offenders that are in more than 80% of the foods we eat.

Artificial Flavors and Colors Artificial flavors and colors means it is derived from a chemical made in a laboratory and has no nutritional value. Every single artificial flavor and color in the food industry has some kind of detrimental health effect. These include neurotoxicity, organ, developmental, reproductive toxicity and cancer.

* Examples – Glutamates – Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) – Maltodextrin – Autolyzed Yeast Extract – Disodium Guanylate – Disodium Inosinate – Blue 1, Blue 2 – Yellow 5, Yellow 6 – Red 3, Red 40

Genetically Modified Foods GM Foods causes allergies, organ damage, cancer, immunotoxicty, and damaging transgenes which affect future generations. Many fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are already genetically modified. The most commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii—about half of Hawaii’s papayas are GM.

* Examples – Corn flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrup – Corn Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose – Modified food starch – Soy flour, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavone – Most vegetable oils and vegetable proteins – Canola oil (also called rapeseed oil) – Cottonseed oil – Anything not listed as 100% cane sugar

Toxic Preservatives Artificial preservatives are responsible for causing a host of health problems pertaining to respiratory tract, heart, blood and other. Some are very neurotoxic especially when combined with specific nutrients.

* Examples – Antimicrobials – Nitrites (i.e. Sodium Nitrite) – Nitrates (i.e. Sodium Nitrate) – Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) – Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) – Sulfites (i.e. Sodium Sulfite) – Potassium Sorbate – Benzoic Acid – Propyl Gallate – Sodium Benzoate

Toxic Emulsifiers An emulsifier replaces surface proteins and aids in forming the network in specific food recipes. There are no healthy non-organic emulsifiers. They are all toxic causing everything from infertility, digestive disorders and migraines.

* Examples - Polysorbate 80 – Mono-diglycerides – Carrageenan – Xanthan Gum (non-organic) – Guar Gum – Soy Lecithin or Soya Lecithin

Toxic Sweeteners Sweeteners such as Neotame are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. They are all very potent, neurotoxic, immunotoxic and excitotoxic.

* Examples – Aspartame – High Fructose Corn Syrup – Neotame – Sucralose – Sodium cyclamate – Acesulfame-K

Toxic Adulterants Food fraud and economically motivated food adulteration is highlighted by some very toxic substances which cause cancer, glaucoma, digestive and liver disorders. These are added to foods to increase their color, volume or weight.

* Examples – Metanil Yellow – Potassium bromate – Malachite Green – Tamarind seeds – Washing powder – Argemone seeds

This list is by no means extensive. There are now hundreds of toxic additives in our food supply. Chemical terrorism in our food supply must end and it starts with you.

Please look at the ingredient lists before you purchase any processed foods. If you see any of these, don’t buy the product. Continue to educate yourself on the influx of new toxins introduced every year. Eventually, if we investigate enough the answers come. Rule of thumb, if the ingredient list has one chemical or more…it’s one too many.

About the Author

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/05/20/the-reality-of-chemical-terrorism-in-our-food/

By – Bruno Waterfield – The Telegraph -

The European Union is to ban olive oil jugs and dipping bowls from restaurant tables in a move described by one of Britain’s top cooks as authoritarian and damaging to artisanal food makers.

From – British Republican Blog -

By John Leyden – The Rigister -

Gov-enhanced hacking capability is bad, says PGP dude

Heavyweights of the cryptographic world have lined up behind a campaign against proposed US wiretapping laws that could require IT vendors to place new backdoors in digital communications services.

Technical details are vague at present, but the planned law could mandate putting wiretap capabilities in endpoints to cover everything from instant messaging and chat to services such as Skype, Google Hangouts and even Xbox Live.

Critics of the proposed law – including cryptographer Bruce Schneier and Phil Zimmermann, the creator of email encryption package PGP – argue that any backdoor would be open to abuse by hackers, including foreign governments. Any such system would necessarily make software both more complex and harder to secure, as well as posing a privacy risk.

Advocates of updating CALEA say it should apply to encrypted VoIP channels, P2P and instant mobile messaging services to help fight organised crime and terrorism. The FBI argue the net is “going dark” to them, thanks to encryption technologies which render valid wiretapping warrants useless.

Computer scientists argue that the opposite is closer to the truth: information about people’s movements and communications is more freely available than ever before, thanks to social networking and smartphones. Through moves such as the proposed “CALEA II” law, US agencies are getting closer to achieving their goal of real-time tapping of online communications. We are, therefore, living in a golden age of state surveillance.

In addition, critics point out that CALEA-mandated systems have been abused. For example, eavesdroppers tapped the mobile phones of the then Prime Minister of Greece, Kostas Karamanlis, his cabinet ministers and security officials for about nine months between June 2004 and March 2005 around the time of the Athens Olympics.

The spies used CALEA backdoors on Vodafone Greece switches to illegally plant spyware so that conversations were relayed to 14 “shadow” pay-as-you-go mobile phones.

The Greek newspaper Kathimerini on Sunday revealed in 2011 that four of those phones were originally purchased by the US embassy, although the eavesdroppers were never traced. In a similar case, AT&T’s CALEA controls went through a Solaris machine that was rooted by hackers, giving crooks the ability to tap into calls.

Critics of CALEA also point out that if endpoint wiretaps were mandated in the US there would be nothing to stop software developers creating non-compliant software elsewhere, and then releasing it as open source code. There would be no way of preventing this technology from being imported into the US and rendering the whole proposal largely pointless – at least, when applied against criminals and terrorists.

In this scenario, the general population and corporate users would be using technology that is easier for hostile parties to wiretap, the crypto boffins warn (PDF, 7 pages).

The FBI’s desire to expand CALEA mandates amounts to developing for our adversaries capabilities that they may not have the competence, access, or resources to develop on their own. In that sense, the endpoint wiretap mandate of CALEA II may lower the already low barriers to successful cybersecurity attacks.We believe that on balance mandating that endpoint software vendors build intercept functionality into their products will be much more costly to personal, economic and governmental security overall than the risks associated with not be ing able to wiretap all communications.

Weakening device security makes users more vulnerable to criminals and spies without really inconveniencing terrorists or fraudsters, even for those who trust US government agencies not to abuse increased wiretap powers.

Ed Felten, one of the computer scientists opposed to wiretapping endpoints – be they on smartphones or PCs – summarises the reservations of crypto-boffins in a blog post here.

“The plan would endanger the security of US users and the competitiveness of US companies, without making it much harder for criminals to evade wiretaps,” Felten explains. ®

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/21/crypto_boffins_oppose_fed_backdoors/

By Shawn Helton – 21st Century Wire -

For the past two weeks we’ve seen the Obama administration embroiled in controversy, as three separate scandals continue to grow and attach themselves to the White House.

While this is major news, and does have the power to topple this U.S. President, there are other far-reaching actions unfolding under his watch…

In a bizarre move, President Obama, held two joint press conferences last week, one with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and another with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Perhaps the dual Presidential podiums were a subliminal touch to what seemed to blur the line between world leaders, in a sense, becoming rule by global council. This strange observation may well be significant to understanding the kind of dark partnerships that are developing world-wide.

Rightly, most of the media will focus on the obvious take down of an empire, as they try to uncover the truth about Benghazi, IRS, and the DOJ. However, on the global chess board of finance and war, more stark revelations have come to light involving the U.S. President. During the press conference with Prime Minister Cameron, President Obama, made vague sweeping statements about a Transatlantic Partnership with the E.U. A partnership that many fear will lead to a Transatlantic Union which will impose more globalized standards and regulations, potentially derailing individual free trade.

This was made clear by The New American earlier this year:

“The “Transatlantic Partnership,” of course, is just one of the major sovereignty-threatening international schemes being pursued by the Obama administration simultaneously — closer North American Integration and the so-called “Trans-Pacific Partnership” are two of the most prominent efforts. The latest plot, though, has far-reaching, global implications that critics argue represent a serious threat to America and freedom. If the U.S.-EU deal ends up becoming reality, the regulatory regime governing the new bloc, which accounts for about half of global GDP, would become the de-facto standard-setting entity for the entire planet.”

Obama had this to say during the Cameron press conference:

“With respect to the relationship between the U.K. and the EU, we have a special relationship with the United Kingdom. And we believe that our capacity to partner with a United Kingdom that is active, robust, outward-looking and engaged with the world is hugely important to our own interests as well as the world. And I think the U.K.’s participation in the EU is an expression of its influence and its role in the world, as well as obviously a very important economic partnership”.

Obama echoed the same rhetoric at the Erdogan press conference adding: “Today, we focused on three areas that I want to highlight. First, we agreed to keep expanding trade and investment. Over the past four years, our trade has surged and U.S. exports to Turkey have more than doubled. As the United States pursues a new trade and investment partnership with the EU, I want to make sure that we also keep deepening our economic ties with Turkey. So we’re creating a new high-level committee that will focus on increasing trade and investment between our two countries and will help fuel Turkish innovation. And the progress that Turkey’s economy has made over the last several years I think has been remarkable and the Prime Minister deserves much credit for some of the reforms that are already taking place.”

It seems that more and more we’re faced with a manufactured reality, one in which international institutions will have dictatorial power over trade and the economy world-wide. Breaking away from sovereign entities controlling their own destiny.

Is the transatlantic partnership a sleeping giant for the global economy? What other partnerships are being harbored in regards to U.S., Britain and Turkey? How does this tie into the situation in Syria?

Writer Patrick Henningsen delves further into this in a recent op-ed for Russia Today news: “On Wednesday Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul(R) weighed in on the Benghazi debacle, in a direct challenge to the President and Hillary Clinton, inferring that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack unfolded as a result of a secret arms trade, and rubbishing the previous government line put forward by Susan Rice and the US Intelligence community that the attack was a result of a YouTube film, “The Innocence of Muslims”. During a recent CNN interview Paul explains:

“I’ve actually always suspected that, although I have no evidence, that maybe we were facilitating arms leaving Libya going through Turkey into Syria,” he said. “Were they trying to obscure that there was an arms operation going on at the CIA annex?”

One can only conclude that those in the world who are making economic reforms aligned to a socialist “pay your fair share” tax scheme, can also control the narrative on world events. Creating a new kind of “strategy of tension” by forcing countries to be complicit in illegal activities, via their trade partnerships. Is the new growing economic partnership, a partnership in conflict and consolidation?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/05/21/scandals-scoundrels-and-global-trade-partners-2/

Foreword by Neil Foster – Sovereign Independent UK -

As the British Armed Forces are being decimated through simply sacking soldiers of experience, and perhaps a conscience, the drive is now on to fool 10,000 play station generation youngsters as cannon fodder, for the years ahead of perpetual war, to slaughter millions of innocent civilians in countries they probably couldn’t even find on a map and whose people have never done anything to threaten harm to Britain. Thye are being fooled by glossy ads on TV and in the sick mainstream media in general who are quite happy to promote such unlawful wars and allow those politicians advocating and perpetuating them to get off with brutal and bloody murder across the globe with the vast majority of an unempathetic public continuing to go about their daily lives whilst ordinary human beings are being butchered in their names.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10067508/Army-launch-recruitment-drive-for-10000-new-young-soldiers-ahead-of-redundancies.html

I urge any young person to not be fooled by these psychopathic politicos and their media propagandists into believing that this is somehow going to be some kind of glorious adventure in which you’ll come back completely unscathed.

I understand that in these times as unemployment scars many in our society. However, that can’t be used as an excuse for murdering your fellow man, woman or child in countries abroad where those you kill may be in just as dire straits, in many cases far worse, than you.

But of course, you may have no choice. It’s interesting that in the same issue of The Telegraph there appears the article below:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10067418/The-welfare-ghettos-where-ambition-means-being-boss-of-a-gang.html

So perhaps this is the start of a propaganda drive towards conscription and I’m guessing it’ll only take one more orchestrated ‘riot’ on the streets of Britain to bring this in as law.

You may return with your body intact, but there’s a good chance you won’t.

But one thing is certain… You’ll be involved in murder and carnage so horrific that no computer simulation ‘Call of Duty’ or horror movie can prepare your mind for.

You will most certainly never be the same again and will be irreparably damaged psychologically for life…. That’s if you don’t end up as another suicide statistic on the every growing list of those in the military taking their own lives…

JUST SAY NO!