World Press Freedom Day, celebrated May 3, stemmed from the necessity to admonish governments the world over a free media acts as a barometer of the health of a nation — insofar as wrongdoing, exposed, can’t continue unnoticed — but today’s celebration has been severely tempered by a decline in the rights of journalists.
In the one nation which should be considered a bastion of press freedom — enshrined expressly in its storied Constitution — the dogged pursuit of governmental transparency in living up to the journalist’s duty to act as watchdog of the State will instead emblazon a permanent target for prosecution. Or worse.
Wikileaks, itinerant publisher of leaked information of the stripe governments would rather remain hidden, has endured a horrendously negative propaganda campaign from U.S. officials from both sides of the aisle after voluminous caches of documents exposed flagrant, pompous misbehavior at every level.
Founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange rightly condemns the brazen hypocrisy in the United States maintaining claims it desires press freedom, while simultaneously attempting to change the definition of ‘media’ in order to bring grave charges against Wikileaks — going so far as to deem published leaks akin to espionage.
While that couldn’t be further from reality, wrongdoings exposed in Wikileaks’ capacious searchable caches of documents veritably guarantee revelations will occasionally make headlines for years to come — and for American officials, that’s too dangerous to allow.
Hillary Clinton, herself the subject of countless damning emails and documents, has championed the clarion call to crucifixion of Assange under the premise Wikileaks, inexplicably in conjunction with Russia, threw the election from her clutches to gift a win to Donald Trump.
Taking “absolute personal responsibility” for the loss in one breath, Clinton claimed with forked tongue she “was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter, on October 28, and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me, but got scared off.”
Shifting blame shirks responsibility for the corruption and mendacity documents proved Clinton so fond, just as she had on previous occasions, so Assange responded accordingly.
Referencing the contents of Wikileaks’ various Clinton files, Assange pinged the former secretary of state as the “butcher of Libya.”
Clinton’s attempts to shift blame from her actions to the messenger revealing them — and that legions of her supporters sprinted to parrot that logical fallacy — constitutes the exact bumbling of information characteristic of declining press freedom.
In fact, it is the failed presidential candidate’s countless maneuverings on interventionist U.S. foreign policy that left Libya and other nations — having been termed generically, ‘brutal dictatorships,’ prior to American encroachment — decimated beyond repair.
For many of those targets, including Libya, America’s particular brand of Freedom brought with it warlords of every stripe, spates of unhindered violence, and generally deplorable living and humanitarian conditions the original leaders would never have tolerated for civilians, no matter how totalitarian their style of rule.
Invading Libya under the premise Muammar Gaddafi was a tyrant proved to be a whopper of a lie — given the West discovered, to them, a panic-inducing plan by the Libyan leader to move all of Africa away from the almighty petrodollar in favor of the gold-backed dinar.
And that — the lie-shattering evidence in leaked documents from an ethical, free press, which officials could only deliver in their own, newly naked words — is why the media must have as free rein as possible to diligently scrutinize the State, lest its tendency to approve atrocities and justify appalling actions run amok.
It is in that vein Assange through his attorneys has requested the Swedish government drop its detention order against him, which has effectively made the editor a political refugee with limited asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy’s walls.
Allegations of sexual assault have been a millstone around Assange’s neck since he first arrived at the embassy in 2012 — Sweden’s detention order and its extradition friendliness with the United States effectively guaranteed his setting foot outside would earn arrest, removal to Sweden, and a short flight straight to an American prison cage under ridiculous espionage allegations.
In December 2016, SMS records proved police had fabricated the rape accusation against Assange — which should have led to Swedish officials to drop its interest in his detention.
Since that did not occur — and due to the Trump administration’s stated goal to relentlessly pursue the Wikileaks founder for acting with the enemy — Per Samuelson, one of the attorneys representing Assange, asserted Wednesday,
“Given that the U.S. is obviously hunting him now, he has to make use of his political asylum and it is Sweden’s duty to make sure that Sweden is no longer a reason for that fact he has to stay in the embassy.
“If they rescind the detention order, there is a possibility he can go to Ecuador and then he can use political asylum in an entire country.”
CIA Director Mike Pompeo crushed centuries of press tradition recently, in terming Wikileaks a “hostile intelligence service” — simply because a witch hunt befits the current establishment’s penchant for dodging any unfavorable spotlights on its corruption, greed, graft, and pomposity.
As the falling dominoes of liberty are tragically wont to do, should one publisher be characterized as hostile, it should be assumed any press outside the mainstream, corporo-government paradigm is considered equally a threat — and the thriving, imperative independent press would be next in line for execution.
Whatever miscreants have bought the State’s scaremongering about Wikileaks — that a free press is somehow antithetical to a free, functioning society — would do well to remember the freedom to choose among hundreds and thousands of media platforms, as opposed to a propaganda of just two flavors should the State take over those duties.
Reporters Without Borders — guardian of free journalism — reports the United States this year ranks an abhorrent forty-third on its World Press Freedom Index.
Until U.S. officials halt their war on journalism, it is perhaps a necessity to forget the First Amendment’s protection of the free press — words that hollow in practice should not be a boast permitted to a country acting in direct contradiction to the promise they once offered.
“It was a bit disorienting – we weren’t hearing what we expected to hear,” said William Kurth, team lead with Cassini’s Radio and Plasma Wave Science (RPWS) instrument. “I’ve listened to our data from the first dive several times and I can probably count on my hands the number of dust particle impacts I hear.”
The recording, which was made on April 26, consists of mainly static with some erratic pings, signalling to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory that the area between Saturn’s rings consists of much less space dust than previously believed. If there are aliens living between the rings they love to dust.
NASA said the particles they did encounter were no larger than those in smoke, roughly one micron across, or 1,000th of a millimeter. In contrast, Cassini detected hundreds of particles per second when it crossed the plane of Saturn’s rings.
The sounds produced by RPWS, which detects radio and plasma waves and then converts them to sounds, differs to what would be heard with a human ear, which would be unable to pick up on any noises in the vacuum of space, if you’re unlucky enough to end up floating around there.
More data is expected back from Cassini in the coming days as it approaches the end of its mission. On September 15 the craft is scheduled to plunge into Saturn, beaming back as much as possible until its eventual demise as it burns up.
Launched in 1997, Cassini has provided never-seen-before images of Saturn’s atmosphere and nearby moons, including the heat of an ocean beneath the surface of the moon Enceladus and Saturn’s hexagon-shaped jet stream.
NASA Cassini spacecraft snaps ‘intriguing’ Saturn jet stream http://on.rt.com/7x4b
Film director Ridley Scott suggests that intelligent aliens are “out there,” and Earth’s inhabitants should prepare for the worst.
May 2, 2017
Film director Ridley Scott, who delights in terrifying moviegoers with his cinematic blend of horror and science fiction, suggested in a recent interview that the scary prospect of belligerent invading aliens might transcend the realm of sci-fi. According to Scott, hundreds of alien species are “out there” on distant worlds, and Earth’s inhabitants should prepare for the worst if they ever decide to visit our planet.
One scientist, though, says that Scott’s information about such hostile, and abundant, aliens is off-base and unsupported.
Scott told Agence France-Presse (AFP) about his belief in “superior beings,” while fielding questions about his latest movie, “Alien: Covenant,” opening in theaters in the U.S. on May 19. He warned that any extraterrestrial travelers who are technologically advanced enough to show up on our doorstep would likely be very intelligent and very hostile. And unlike the scenarios that dominate movies — if we go toe-to-toe with these invaders, we probably won’t be the victors, he said.
“If you are stupid enough to challenge them you will be taken out in three seconds,” Scott told AFP. [Greetings, Earthlings! 8 Ways Aliens Could Contact Us]
In the interview, Scott explained that “the experts” estimate there are “between 100 and 200 entities” on other planets, following what could be a similar evolutionary path to ours. And if they get here first, our best bet would be to “run for it,” AFP reported.
There has been a tremendous amount of talk about the spending deal that was just reached in Congress. Most of the focus has been on who “won” and who “lost” politically, and if you have been keeping up with my articles you definitely know my opinion on the matter. But what nobody is really talking about is that this deal actually increases spending at a time when our debt has been absolutely exploding. We added more than a trillion dollars a year to the U.S. national debt during Obama’s eight years in the White House, and our debt binge actually accelerated toward the end of his second term. In fact, the national debt increased by more than 1.4 trillion dollars during fiscal 2016…
In fiscal 2016, which ended on Friday, the federal debt increased $1,422,827,047,452.46, according to data released today by the U.S. Treasury.
At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2015, the last day of fiscal 2015, the federal debt was $18,150,617,666,484.33, according to the Treasury. By the close of business on Sept. 30, 2016, the last day of fiscal 2016, it had climbed to $19,573,444,713,936.79.
Since we are already in so much debt, we might as well shoot for the moon, right?
This new spending deal increases spending in a whole bunch of different ways, but it doesn’t do anything to raise more revenue.
At the moment, the U.S. national debt is stuck at $19,846,087,305,498.20 because the debt ceiling has not been raised. The federal government is using accounting tricks to keep that number from moving, but the moment the debt ceiling is finally raised by Congress that number will jump up by hundreds of billions of dollars.
By the time fiscal 2017 is over, we will almost certainly have added at least another trillion dollars to the debt, and the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that an additional $10 trillion will be added to the debt over the next ten years.
These days we toss around the phrase “a trillion dollars” as if it isn’t a big deal.
But it is a big deal.
Let me share a little illustration with you to give you an idea just how much money a trillion dollars is. If you started spending a million dollars every single day on the day that Jesus Christ was born and you kept on spending a million dollars every day since then, you still would not have spent a trillion dollars by now.
The borrower is the servant of the lender, and I would say that we are enslaving ourselves, but that is not exactly accurate because we don’t actually have any intention of ever paying any of this debt back. Instead, we plan to just keep going into more debt for years to come.
Sadly, it will be our children and our grandchildren that will have to deal with all of this debt if our nation lasts that long. Thomas Jefferson was entirely accurate when he described government debt as a way for one generation to steal money from another, and since the day that Barack Obama first entered the White House, the federal government has been stealing more than 100 million dollars an hour from our children and our grandchildren every single hour of every single day.
Just think about that for a moment.
If some thieves could somehow get away with stealing 100 million dollars from someone, that would make headlines all over the globe.
But this is what we are doing to future generations of Americans every single hour of the day.
I have said it before, and I will say it again. What we are doing to our children and our grandchildren is beyond criminal, and in a just society those that are responsible for getting us into so much debt would be going to prison.
When you are in the middle of a debt binge, it can seem like there will never be any consequences, but the truth is that a day of reckoning always arrives eventually.
One of the reasons why I get so fired up about the national debt is because it could literally destroy the bright future that our descendants were supposed to have.
If you look back over the long-term, the average rate of interest on U.S. government debt has been somewhere around 6 percent.
Of course at the moment we are nowhere near that level, but it is inevitable that interest rates will move back toward the long-term average eventually.
So let’s imagine that the average rate of interest got back to just 5 percent. If that happened, we would be paying about a trillion dollars a year just in interest on the national debt and we would be facing national bankruptcy.
Of course the Federal Reserve would likely start printing money like mad at that point, and we would rapidly become another Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
But if it is so dangerous for governments to go into so much debt, why do they do it?
Well, for one thing most politicians don’t really care about long-term considerations. Instead, they actually want the government to spend lots of money in the short-term, because government spending always gives a boost to short-term economic activity.
And if the economy is “doing well” in the short-term, it is more likely that the voters will be in a good mood when voting time arrives.
This is something that Barack Obama understood very well. He inherited quite an economic mess, and so he went on the greatest government debt binge in American history. As I explained in a previous article, if we had not borrowed and spent 9.3 trillion dollars during the time that Obama was in the White House, we would be in the worst economic depression in our history right at this moment.
Of course by going into so much debt, our long-term problems have been magnified.
It had been hoped that with the Republicans in control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives that a sense of fiscal responsibility would return to Washington, but that obviously has not happened. So now the stage is set for the kind of financial meltdown that I have been warning about for a very long time.
At one time the Republicans would at least give lip service to trying to control the debt, but now they also seem to have become convinced that our exploding national debt doesn’t really matter.
There are a few dozen members of the House and a handful of Senators that are still keeping up the fight, but they are vastly outnumbered.
Even though we were the wealthiest and most prosperous nation on the entire planet, that was never enough for us.
We always had to have more, and so we have accumulated the greatest mountain of debt in the history of the world.
There will be severe consequences for what we have done, but the warnings are being ignored, and so now all that is left is for us to reap what we have sown.
Give up the “union” Europe, your poorest countries are being used as cheap labor for the fat cows up North.
EU official year ending unemployment rate for 2016.
“Ms Katz worked inside the WHO for 18 years. She insists that WHO, in cahoots with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), dangerously misrepresents the inherent dangers of ionizing radiation, an insinuation that smacks in the face with egregiousness galore.”
With permission from
May 2, 2017
Imagine the following hypothetical: The World Health Organization (“WHO”) is deeply involved in a high level cover up of the human impact and dangers of ionizing radiation, intentionally hiding the facts from the public, a chilling storyline!
After all, the world community depends upon WHO as an independent org t0 forewarn the general public of health dangers and to help in times of crises, not hide pivotal health facts from public eye.
As it happens, that nightmarish hypothetical comes to life in an interview with Alison Katz, who claims: “We are absolutely convinced that if the consequences of nuclear radiation were known to the public, the debate about nuclear power would end tomorrow. In fact, if the public knew, it would probably be excluded immediately as an energy option.”
Alison Katz heads a NGO known as Independent WHO, and she spends a lot of time arranging sandwich boards with messages like: “Complicity in Scientific Crime” or “Crime of Chernobyl – WHO Accomplice” in front of WHO headquarters/Geneva. For 10 years now on a daily vigil from 8:00-to-6:00 she and/or other protestors expose alleged misbehavior committed by WHO, right outside of the headquarters building. Imagine this: Ten years on the same street corner every working day. It’s commitment and determination sans pareil.
“The aim of the silent vigil is to remind the World Health Organisation of its duties. It was Hippocrates who formulated the ethical rules for health practitioners. The World Health Organisation ignores these rules, when it comes to protecting the health of the victims of the consequences of the nuclear industry”.
Which brings forth: Ten years of hard work combating a difficult and challenging issue warrants public adulation beyond carrying posters back and forth, come rain or shine, trudging away in the heat of the sun or the freezing cold and snow in front of WHO Hdqs. Hopefully, this article serves that purpose for Alison Katz.
The mission of Independent WHO is to expose WHO’s failings whilst calling for WHO independence away from influence by the worldwide nuclear syndicate: According to WHO Independence’s Web Site: “The World Health Organization (WHO) is failing in its duty to protect those populations who are victims of radioactive contamination.”
Ms Katz worked inside the WHO for 18 years. She insists that WHO, in cahoots with IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), dangerously misrepresents the inherent dangers of ionizing radiation, an insinuation that smacks in the face with egregiousness galore.
Ms Katz’s April 2017 interview, which this article is based upon, can be heard in its entirety.
This article condenses and summarizes her one-hour interview. As such, according to Ms Katz: “The health consequences of nuclear activity, whether they are civil or military, are not known to the public… There has been a very high level cover up… including the WHO.”
For over 50 years WHO provided “a clean bill of health for nuclear power.” However, according to Ms Katz, that clean bill of health is not based upon independent science. It’s based upon “pseudo science” manipulated and largely controlled by the nuclear lobby and International Atomic Energy Agency, the Queen Bee of the pro-nuke Hive.
Furthermore, within the “United Nations family hierarchy,” WHO is entirely subservient to IAEA. In turn, IAEA reports to the Security Council of the UN or the very top echelon of the power hierarchy of the world, including France, China, UK, U.S., and the Russian Federation. Far and away, these are the world’s biggest nuke heads.
Connecting the dots leaves one breathless within a telling trail of pro-nuke advocacy of the highest order… hm-m-m, thus raising the question: How is it humanly possible for WHO to objectively, impartially, squarely and soberly analyze and recommend ionizing radiation issues on behalf of the general public?
Is it at all possible, even a little bit?
As it goes, the IAEA has two mandates, which sound innocent enough: (1) to prevent proliferation of nuclear power and (2) promotion of the use of the atom on a peaceful basis, ah-ah-ah… oh well, never mind. In reality, IAEA is a commercial lobbying org promoting use of the atom, yet at the same time, it dictates WHO procedures, standards, and published articles on the matter of nuclear radiation, prompting a very pregnant question: Is this a conflict of interest for WHO? Answer: Yes, it is! WHO is a creature of the dictates of IAEA, which is the world’s largest promoter of the atom. Whereas, WHO is supposed to “independently serve the public interest,” not kowtow to a nuclear advocacy powerhouse that reports to nuclear powerhouse countries that have a deepening love affair with nuclear power, warts and all.
For example, sixty (60) reactors are currently under construction in fifteen countries. In all, one hundred sixty (160) power reactors are in the planning stage and three hundred (300) more have been proposed. That’s a love affaire.
Meanwhile, as for WHO’s mandate: It serves as the leading authority of standards for public health, coordinating research, advising member states, and formulating ionizing radioactivity health policies. However, IAEA has been usurping WHO’s mandate for the past 50 years. In fact, a 1959 Agreement (WHA 12-40) between the two says WHO needs prior approval of IAEA before taking any action or publishing material dealing with nuclear, period!
As a result of this 50-year conflict of interest, which is deeply embedded by now, Ms Katz claims WHO must, absolutely must, become independent, thus breaking the stranglehold of numero uno promoter of nuclear power over WHO, which is mandated to serve the public, not IAEA.
Not only is there a serious conflict of interest, Katz claims WHO fails, time and again, to meet its mandate to the public, as for example:
1) WHO remained absent from Chernobyl for five years even though the WHO mandate requires it to be present the “day after a catastrophe” to evaluate and provide assistance. But, WHO was MIA for 5 years.
2) WHO does not issue independent reports on radiation issues. All nuclear-related reports are written by IAEA but published “in the name of the WHO.”
3) Following Chernobyl, there were two international conferences held to analyze the implications of the catastrophe; one held in Geneva in 1995 and the second in Kiev in 2001. The “Proceedings of the Conferences” were never published by WHO; thus, never made public even though WHO claims the proceedings are publicly available. Confusing? Yes! To this day, the relevant question remains: What did “the analyses” show?
As a result of WHO’s egregious conflicts, the world community has no independent arms-length source on nuclear radiation. That is a situation fraught with conflict and extremely difficult to accept, sans grimacing with a lot of teeth grinding.
Once again, with emphasis: There is no independent international authority reporting to the public on nuclear radiation…. none whatsoever. All information about nuclear radiation ultimately comes from the primary users/promoters of nuclear power even though they have a very big heavy axe to grind.
Of course, there are independent scientists, but they face enormous obstacles in coming forward with the truth, thereby risking monetary grants and risking personal positions, as well as family livelihood.
Not only that, but over the years all departments within WHO that dealt with nuclear radiation have been highly compromised. Even worse, according to Ms Katz, no senior radiation scientists work for WHO, none… nada.
What constitutes the “nuclear establishment” is a fair question; it consists of the major governments of the world like France and the U.S but led by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the top dog, establishing standards for the world. Strangely enough, there are no health experts at ICRP, prompting a logical question: Why not?
There is more to be concerned about, e.g., another shocking fact regarding ICRP, as if there are not already enough shockers with the thread that runs throughout nuclear power’s closely-knit network: Even though “ionizing radiation is mutagenic and always causes mutations, causing damage at the cellular level, there are no molecular biologists working in the ICRP” (Katz). Thus, the world’s largest institution for determination of radiation standards for the public has no molecular biologists on staff. That fact is beyond belief, an eye-opener beyond all other eye-openers.
It’s almost as if the regulators don’t give a damn about the effects of radiation on the general public. Do they?
Just after Fukushima in 2011, Ms Katz met with the Director General and five of the highest-ranking officials of WHO. The mayor of Geneva also attended the meeting; curiously, the City of Geneva, where WHO is headquartered, has an anti-nuclear provision in its city code.
The outcome of that meeting clearly demonstrated to Katz, and to the mayor of Geneva, that WHO abdicated its responsibilities for Fukushima.
However, a small victory ensued during the meetings as some solace was found when the Director General did admit, “there is no safe threshold of radiation.” And, she admitted to differences between internal and external radiation, which was a change of heart.
Remarkably, the Director General also confessed a shocking level of incredulity that only 50 people died from Chernobyl, widely claimed by the Director General’s own organization, WHO. That is the final number (50) of deaths that WHO attributes to Chernobyl. Howbeit, it’s a fabricated number w/o any meaning whatsoever and not supported by observational data.
Consequences of Chernobyl
WHO held a Chernobyl Forum in 2004 designed to “end the debate about the impact of Chernobyl radiation” whilst WHO maintains that 50 people died.
Here’s the final conclusion of that Chernobyl Forum ‘04: The mental health of those who live in the area is the most serious aftereffect, leading to strong negative attitudes and exaggerated sense of dangers to health and of exposure to radiation. Mental health was thus identified as the biggest negative aftereffect.
Because that conclusion is so brazenly bizarre, the Chernobyl Forum ‘04 must’ve been part of an alternative universe, way out there beyond the wild blue yonder, maybe the Twilight Zone or maybe like entering a scene in Jan Švankmajer’s Alice, a dark fantasy film loose adaptation of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.
Here’s reality: Chernobyl Liquidators fought the Chernobyl disaster. Eight hundred thousand (800,000) Liquidators from the former USSR, largely recruits from the army, with average age of 33, fought the Chernobyl disaster.
According to an interview (2016) with a Liquidator, “We were tasked with the deactivation of the third and fourth reactors, but we also helped build the containment sarcophagus. We worked in three shifts, but only for five to seven minutes at a time because of the danger. After finishing, we’d throw our clothes in the garbage” (Source: Return to Chernobyl With Ukraine’s Liquidators, Aljazeera, April 25, 2016).
“Estimates of the number of liquidators who died or became ill as a result of their work vary substantially, but the men of the 633rd say that out of the 259 from their group, 71 have died. Melnik says that 68 have been designated as invalids by a state committee, which investigates their health and determines whether or not their diseases are attributable to Chernobyl… Dr Dimitry Bazyka, the current director-general of the National Research Centre for Radiation Medicine in Kiev, says that approximately 20,000 liquidators die each year,” Ibid.
As for total deaths, the Chief Medical Officer of the Russian Federation reported that 10% of its Chernobyl Liquidators were dead by 2001. The disaster occurred in 1986 with 80,000 dead within 16 years. Authorities out of Ukraine and Belarus confirmed Russian death numbers. Yet, WHO claims 50 died.
Eighty-thousand (80,000) Liquidators, as of 16 years ago, dead from Chernobyl, and that body count, according to Ms Katz, leaves out the people most contaminated by Chernobyl, meaning evacuees and also 57% of the fallout for Chernobyl came down outside of the USSR, Belarus, and Ukraine, and in 13 European countries 50% of the countryside was dangerously contaminated.
As for studies of the radiation impact of Chernobyl: “Thousands of independent studies in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation and in many other countries, that were contaminated to varying degrees by radionuclides, have established that there has been significant increase in all types of cancer, in diseases of the respiratory, gastrointestinal, urogenital, endocrine immune, lymph node nervous systems, prenatal, perinatal, infant child mortality, spontaneous abortions, deformities and genetic anomalies….” (Katz)
Hence, WHO’s handling and analysis and work on Chernobyl leaves the curious-minded speechless, open-mouthed, agape, and confounded.
WHO’s Flawed Fukushima Report
WHO issued two reports on Fukushima:
1) Evaluation of exposure
2) Likely health effects
Alex Rosen of Int’l Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War critiqued the two WHO Fukushima reports, found to be extremely problematic, and once again, similar to Chernobyl, shoddy work that sweeps way too much dirt under the carpet.
Here’s the problem: WHO’s estimates of Fukushima radioactive exposure are at least 50% less than any other estimates, including estimates provided by TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant operator) itself. But, WHO is supposed to be the guardian of public health concerns, not TEPCO.
Also, two critical population studies are ignored in the WHO reports, i.e., all of the residents within the 20 km exclusion zone are eliminated, even though their radiation exposure would be very high, actually highest. The second group ignored is workers on site… ahem!
Additionally, WHO cavalierly approved the Japanese government’s drastic change in annual maximum radiation exposure allowed for the general population up to 20 mSv per year.
Effects of Radiation
The genetic effects of radiation likely exceed anything understood by the general public, as WHO and other health orgs do not properly educate the public about radiation’s risks: “The genetic effects, far from diminishing with time, increase” (Katz), which is extra bad.
Years of research around Chernobyl show that the genetic impact of radiation to the human body becomes much, much worse as time passes. Thus, “radiation is both a continuing and a worsening catastrophe as time passes” (Katz). Radiation’s impact gets worse over time; it does not heal, does not dissipate, does not go away; it grows progressively worse, like the film sequels to Godzilla, which was conceived as a metaphor for nuclear weapons in the early 1950s.
Indisputably, all organ systems of the human body are affected by radioactive contamination. Cancer is not the only nasty result of radiation exposure. Radioactive contamination affects the entire human immune system from head to toe, thus impacting every organ system in the body, e.g. musculoskeletal, etc. This damage to organs is in addition to the various cancer risks.
After all, consider this, 30 years after the fact, horribly deformed Chernobyl Children are found in over 300 asylums in the Belarus backwoods deep in the countryside.
Equally as bad but maybe more odious, as of today, Chernobyl radiation, since 1986, is already affecting 2nd generation kids.
According to a USA Today article, Chernobyl’s Legacy: Kids With Bodies Ravaged by Disaster, April 17, 2016: “There are 2,397,863 people registered with Ukraine’s health ministry to receive ongoing Chernobyl-related health care. Of these, 453,391 are children — none born at the time of the accident. Their parents were children in 1986. These children have a range of illnesses: respiratory, digestive, musculoskeletal, eye diseases, blood diseases, cancer, congenital malformations, genetic abnormalities, trauma.”
It’s taken 30 years for the world, via an article in USA Today, to begin to understand how devastating, over decades, not over a few years, radiation exposure is to the human body. It is a silent killer that cumulates in the body over time and passes from generation to generation to generation, endless destruction that cannot be stopped.
Where is WHO is kinda like Where is Waldo, but sadly the effects of ionizing radiation are not part of a game. It is deadly serious, forevermore. In the meanwhile, Fukushima irradiates and irradiates, limitlessly and so far, unstoppable. Where does its radiation go?
With permission from
Commercial media recollections of the 1986 Chernobyl catastrophe almost always minimize its global impact. A New York Times editorial last Dec. described the April 26 explosions and fires as “a volcano of deadly radioactivity that reached Poland and Scandinavia.” This picture is both factually true and grossly understated — because Chernobyl’s carcinogenic fallout went far beyond northern Europe and all around the world — a fact that is easy to verify.
For example, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded in 2011 that the disaster “Resulted in radioactive material becoming widely dispersed and deposited … throughout the northern hemisphere.” Then, hammering the lesson home like a drill sergeant, UNSCEAR’s report (“Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident”) repeats the phrase “throughout the northern hemisphere” at least five times. Chernobyl’s hemispheric contamination was well known long before the UNSCEAR review, noted in hundreds of books, journals and scientific papers. The March 30, 2005 Oxford Journals reported, “The releases of radioactive materials were such that contamination of the ground was found to some extent in every country in the Northern Hemisphere.” An Environmental History of the World (2002) by Donald Hughes says, “There were measurable amounts throughout the Northern Hemisphere.”
Yet trivialization is the mainstream media rule, especially after three simultaneous reactor melt-downs at Fukushima-Daiichi have contaminated the whole of the Pacific Ocean. On April 23, Abu Dhabi’s “The National” said about Chernobyl: “Half a million ‘liquidators,’ mostly military reservists from all over the Soviet Union, tried to clean up the affected area.” This is flatly untrue, because no one decontaminated the entire Northern hemisphere. Soviet conscripts worked only the region knows as the “exclusion zone” around Chernobyl reactor No. 4 in Pripyat, Ukraine.
Understatements rewrite history, deceptively misinform
Understatements were the rule in the 1990s. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, on April 27, 1998, described “a deadly cloud of radiation across large sections of Russia and Europe.” ¶ The Appleton, Wisc. Post Crescent, April 26, 1998, said, “Ukraine and parts of Russia were hard hit.” ¶ The New York Times, on April 23, 1998, depicted the disaster as “a poisonous radioactive cloud north of Kiev.” ¶ The Los Angeles Times, on April 27, 1995, limited the fallout to “a radioactive cloud across Ukraine, Russia and parts of Europe.” ¶ A June 1, 1998, Associated Press story restricted the “deadly cloud of radiation” to “large sections of Russia and Europe.”
The website GlobalVoices.org reported this April 19: “Chernobyl… caused radioactive material to be spewed into the atmosphere, exposing hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of people in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe to extremely high doses of radiation.” In fact, half of Chernobyl’s total fallout was spewed far beyond the three hardest-hit states, going to every corner of the hemisphere.
Of course ignoring the fact that reactor disasters have poisoned the whole earth misinforms the public, but why?
One reason is that downplaying the severity of Chernobyl — and Fukushima-Daiichi as well — sugar-coats the threat posed today and every day by operating power reactors beyond their original time-limited licenses, or near earthquake faults, volcanic regions, or tsunami zones. The hidden agenda behind the profit-driven media’s deliberate belittling of reactor accidents — and the dangers of radiation — is to protect significant advertising revenue. Big utilities, big pharma, big mining, big universities, and big weapons labs makes billions of dollars from increasing the “background” level of radiation. Official background exposure was 170 millirems per-year for decades; 18 months after Chernobyl it doubled to 360 mR/yr; and it nearly doubled again a few years ago to 620 mR/yr.) “Nuclearists” intend to keep it this way, even if it means buying pricey ads claiming that reactors are safe and “small” radiation doses are harmless.
Chernobyl Doused the Whole Hemisphere
Early on in Chernobyl reporting, it was common for the Associated Press and others to broadcast its global impact using plain language. On May 14, 1986, AP noted, “An invisible cloud of radioactivity… has worked its way gradually around the world.” On Oct. 9, 1988, it said flatly, “Chernobyl … spewed radiation worldwide.” And it reported in the Duluth Herald, May 15, 1986: “Airborne radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident is now so widespread that it is likely to fall to the ground wherever it rains in the United States, the EPA said.” This warning should never stop being flabbergasting, and should have been the death knell for nuclear power.
The Duluth News-Tribune & Herald reported May 22, 1986: “For the second time since the [Chernobyl disaster] last month, a slightly elevated level of radioactive iodine has been found in a Minnesota milk sample, state health officials said.” Western officials were precautionary. The AP reported May 15, 1986 that “State authorities in Oregon have warned residents dependent solely on rainwater for drinking that they should arrange other supplies for the time being.”
In his 2002 book An Environmental History of the World, Donald Hughes notes, “For example, an increase of [radiation in rainwater] recorded on May 12 in Washington State was more than 140 times the background level measured immediately before the Chernobyl cloud reached the USA.” Today, remember to read corporate minimization of Chernobyl’s effects with a radioactive grain of salt.
With permission from
May 3, 2017
A small group of scientists from Cuba, working with a limited budget, have been able to develop a vaccine against cancer that has been successfully tested on more than 4,000 people.
The scientific community is impressed by the Cuban discovery, and many doctors claim that the cure for cancer has finally been found.
The vaccine has produced incredible results even in the more advanced stages of cancer. It finally saw the light of day after 16 years of intense research, and doesn’t have any adverse side-effects.
The vaccine works by attacking a protein known as EGF (epidermal growth factor), which allows lung cancer cells to grow.
The CIMAvax vaccine reinforce the immune system and accelerates the production of antibodies that bind to EGF, preventing it to feed cancer cells and not allowing the disease to spread.
This improves the longevity of the patient and effectively stops the disease from progressing. The administration of the vaccine also relieves the symptoms of cancer and reduces the pain – after a few therapies, patients have seen a significant weight gain and got their appetite and energy back.
The vaccine has already arrived in countries such as Bosnia & Herzegovina, Paraguay, Colombia and Peru.
There are high hopes among Cuban scientists that the vaccine can cure breast, uterus and prostate tumors, while further research on other types of cancer is underway.
The vaccine is free for Cubans, while people from other parts of the world may inform themselves on the vaccine by contacting the Cuban medical services:
How to get the vaccine and how can you contact experts from Cuba
EscoZul is produced only in the Cuban company Labiofam: AvenidaIndependencia km. 16 1/2 Boyeros, Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba Tel: +53 683 3188/683 2151, fax: 683 2151, tel. 537 683 2151 Phone Dr. Verges – radiologist and Niudis Cruz: 537 683 0924, email: email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org.
The National Center for Health has the following contacts:
Director — Dr. Jose Andres Lopez Losada, [email protected] Number is +5378322202, and “Health Tourism”: Calle 230 entre 15A and 17, Siboney, Havana, Cuba, tel. +53 7 33-7473 al 74 Fax: +53 7 33-7198 y +53 7 33 -7199, email: [email protected]
Web: Centro Internacional de Salud La Pradera
Another useful contact is the National Institute of Oncology
They perform many studies, develop drug treatments: InstitutoNacional de Oncología y Radiobiología — INOR, address: Calle 29, esq. F, Vedado, Plaza de la Revolución, Havana, Cuba,
tel. (537) 8325865, (537) 8382576, (537) 8382578, (537) 8375440. Fax (537) 8382593,
ISIS is a US creation. Ask yourself this, if ISIS would truly be a terrorist group intent on destroying the US, why have they not attacked US corporations all over the world? Also, why has not ISIS attacked anything Israeli? The answer is obvious.
May 2, 2017
The self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is using Islam as a cover cloak to perpetuate all kinds of heinous crimes the Islamic holy book, the Quran, forbids adherents of the religion to do.
These criminals touting themselves as the defenders of Islam in fact know nothing about the religion. The terrorists were created by their proxy masters in the West with the support of Israel. The ultimate goal is to destabilize the Middle East so that the masters can continue to plunder resources in the region. The terrorists themselves also stand to gain.
ISIS and all the other terrorist groups’ actions have nothing to do with religion. They use Islam to hunt for money and power. The fundamental goal of these terrorists is to create fear among people so they can continue to carry out their nefarious activities with other distinct criminal groups – such as drug cartels – to generate money through the illegal economy or black markets.
The black flag of ISIS has become the latest symbol of Islamic extremism. The brutal nature of ISIS’ beheadings and slaughter of its victims while recording and sharing it on the internet to show its power, is nothing but a complete misrepresentation of Islam.
ISIS fighters have killed or driven away many people who disagree with their teachings in territories they have annexed in Syria and Iraq. Minority religious group, including Christians and Yazidis, are the worst victims in ISIS-controlled areas.
The brutalities of ISIS know no bounds. However, even animals have realized these brutalities, and are now taking drastic actions against the terrorist group.
Local media in Iraq report that wild boars inhabiting the al-Rashad region, located about 53 kilometers south of Kirkuk, have angrily attacked ISIS fighters who were patrolling the area. The attack is said to have left 3 fighters of the terrorists dead while the rest had to flee for their lives.
A man who spoke to local media on condition of anonymity, due to fear of reprisal from the terrorists, said it is unclear what led the animals to attack the fighters. He said ISIS fighters constantly patrol the area.
On Sunday, April 23, luck eluded ISIS fighters when they came face-to-face with the wild animals. According to the anonymous man, what he witnessed was the aftermath of the attack. He saw three ISIS fighters badly eaten by the boars. He said after the animals had left the tattered bodies, the fighters who had fled earlier then returned to the scene of the attack with heavy weapons and a taste for vengeance against the animals.
The animals by then had gone deep into the wilderness. The terrorists picked the remains of their fallen fellows for burial.
A local chief, Sheikh Anwar al-Assi, who opposes ISIS, told The Times of London in an interview that the terrorists were hiding in the area; waiting to attack tribal men who had formed armed coalition against the group. He said while ISIS fighters were still waiting, the boars suddenly overran their positions, killing 3 while injuring 5.
“It is likely their movement disturbed a herd of wild pigs, which inhabit the area as well as the nearby cornfields,” Sheikh al-Assi said.
One local outlet quoted a second unnamed source as saying that the terrorists were able to take revenge against the wild boars, but the source failed to elaborate further regarding the method of the revenge. It is clear that this source wasn’t a firsthand witness like the first unnamed source.
Irrespective of this, the animals succeeded in killing three terrorists without using heavy guns or jet bombers. This shows that even animals are against what ISIS is proclaiming on the face of the Earth in the name of Islam. Probably, the boars are masters in guerrilla warfare, and will keep on killing ISIS fighters in the area by their effective hit and run tactics.
When the death of the terrorists broke, many people took to social media to express their joy. Some suggested the boars are effective fighting machines against the terrorists, more so than the so-called coalition led by the United States.
According to local observers in Iraq, ISIS seized Kirkuk and its surrounding areas in 2014. The terrorists have since been unleashing pure brutalities on residents in the area. It is said thousands of civilians had to flee the area for their lives. These displaced people now live in refugee camps in the province and neighboring cities.
Local officials in Kirkuk said they have repeatedly requested the Iraqi government to deploy the military to liberate the area from the terrorists. But the government claims it currently employs its full military forces to retake Mosul from the terrorists. The city of Mosul is the stronghold of ISIS in Iraq. The fight to retake the city from the terrorists has been ongoing for six months now. The Iraqi government has said it will launch military operations against ISIS in other areas of the country once it retakes Mosul.
Women are constantly implicitly blamed, both in the Bible and in contemporary culture, for their rape.
Director SIIBS, University of Sheffield
PhD Candidate in Interdisciplinary Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield
May 3, 2017
A retiring judge recently faced accusations of victim blaming when she used her final courtroom case as a plea to women to “protect themselves” from rapists by staying sober. Judge Lindsey Kushner restated these views in a television interview on Good Morning Britain, asking, “why shouldn’t you say – be aware ladies?”
Kushner’s comments were met with a mixed response. Some praised her for using her final speech before stepping down from the bench as a gesture of concern and warning to women who, she believes, make themselves more vulnerable to rape after consuming alcohol. Others, including representatives from Rape Crisis and some feminist activists, see these comments as acutely dangerous – comments that encourage and affirm attitudes of victim-blaming which, in turn, perpetuate the stereotypes that underpin rape culture.
As a deeply influential cultural document, the Bible has a lot to say when it comes to attitudes around sex, shame and gender identity. Rape is endemic in the Bible (both literally and metaphorically) and, more often than not, functions as a conduit for male competition and a tool to uphold patriarchy.
For example, David’s rape of Bathsheba is echoed in his son Amnon’s rape of half-sister Tamar, and his son Absalom’s rape of David’s ten concubines. And in Judges 21, the Benjaminites are “saved from extinction” through the mass rape of women from Jabesh-gilead and Shiloh.
A common thread in the biblical text is that women are responsible for maintaining their sexual “purity”. This is not in the interests of their own well-being, but to ensure that as male property, women remain “undamaged”. This seems to be a no-win situation. The consequence for Dinah, who transgresses social boundaries by going “out to meet the women of the land”, is rape. Women who do fulfil feminine ideals, such as Bathsheba, who is described as “very beautiful”, tend to attract negative, often violent, male sexual attention.
In other words, one way or another, women are constantly implicitly blamed, both in the Bible and in contemporary culture, for their rape.
A case in point is another “very beautiful” biblical woman, Susanna. Susanna is the subject of an attempted rape by two elders, who spy on her while she’s bathing before conspiring to coerce her into sex:
Look the garden doors are shut, and no one can see us. We are burning with desire for you; so give your consent, and lie with us. If you refuse, we will testify against you that a young man was with you, and this was why you sent your maids away.
In the biblical text, Susanna’s beauty is to blame for attracting the attentions of the elders. In a plotline that’s echoed in today’s court rooms, Susanna’s testimony isn’t believed and her sexual conduct is brought into question. It takes a man, Daniel, to advocate for her and to rescue her from execution after she refuses the elders’ offer.
In his successful defence of her and condemnation of the elders, Daniel says: “Beauty has beguiled you and lust has perverted your heart.” Here, as so often in contemporary society, rape and sexual assault are linked to the attractiveness of women rather than a violent crime of power and control. Even in art, Susanna is implicitly blamed for being targeted. As the critic John Berger has observed, Susanna, like Bathsheba, is often depicted looking at herself in a mirror while she’s bathing:
The mirror was often used as a symbol of the vanity of woman. The moralising, however, was mostly hypocritical. You painted a naked woman because you enjoyed looking at her, you put a mirror in her hand and you called the painting Vanity, thus morally condemning the woman whose nakedness you had depicted for your own pleasure.
Kushner’s words continue this not-so-grand tradition of victim blaming. Kushner suggests that women who do not exhibit “disinhibited behaviour” by abstaining from alcohol are better able to fight off men with “evil intentions”. What is key here is that moderating women’s behaviour does not do anything to address the issue of rape or dismantle rape culture. It just shifts the collective social responsibility to prevent rape and sexual assault to that of individual women.
Women who do not agree to self-police are blamed for others’ actions. What Kushner is giving isn’t “just advice” or “common sense”; it reduces rape to a choice: choose for someone else to be targeted for attack rather than yourself.
Rather than continuing to judge women for their behaviour, perhaps it’s time we started to judge a society that blames women for rape.
Rebecca Sharrock suffers from Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM), a condition that allows her to remember every experience of her life.
May 3, 2017
Can you imagine being able to remember every single experience of your life, every conversation you have ever had, every meal you’ve eaten, every word in your favorite book and even the feel of the clothes you wore on your very first birthday? That’s what Becky Sharrock’s life is like, and as amazing as that ability sounds, she says it can also be quite terrifying at times.
Three years ago, Rebecca Sharrock was reading a newspaper article which mentioned that it was impossible for people to remember details of their lives that had occurred during the first four years of their existence. “What absolute nonsense,” she thought to herself, because she could clearly remember her life all the way back to when she was just 12 days old. Her parents had carried her to the driver’s seat of their car and laid her down for a photo. She remembers looking around and wondering what the seat cover and steering wheel above her were. But it wasn’t nonsense, she was just one of only 80 known people suffering from a mysterious condition called Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM).
Photo: Rebecca Sharrock
Like Jill Price, the woman who cannot forget, 27-year-old Becky Sharrock, from Brisbane, Australia, remembers all the details of her life, but what really makes her special is how far back her memories go. Jill and other HSAM sufferres only remember details of their daily lives from when they were 10 – 14, but Sharrock recalls specific moments of her infancy. She remembers the dress she wore on her first birthday and how itchy it felt, how scary the Minnie Mouse plush toy she got as a gift looked and how she would always push it away, and how uninterested she was in her baby sister at first.
Becky will sometimes ask her mother a question about some trivial thing, like if she likes a TV show, and be bewildered by her answer. “But that’s not what you said last time I asked,” she might say.
“Last time? When was the last time?” her mom will respond.
“When I asked five years ago,” Becky will tell her.
Photo: Rebecca Sharrock
Becky Sharrock’s unusual case we recently featured on Channel 9’s 60 Minutes, where reporter Allison Langdon put her ability to the test, by asking her questions about her favorite book series, Harry Potter.
“I tested her on the (Harry Potter) books because she says she can remember every single word from every single book,”Langdon said. “So I would pick up a book and open a page and read her a line and immediately she would name the book, chapter number, chapter name and could recite every word until I told her to stop.”
Photo: Rebecca Sharrock
Being able to remember every little detail about most of your life is a remarkable ability, but as every HSAM sufferer will tell you, it can be very tough to deal with. Forgetting is one of the mechanisms we use to get over tragic or sad experiences in our lives, but it’s something that people like Becky Sharrock or Jill Price are incapable of doing.
“One of our great abilities as a human is that we can forget, get rid of the stuff that’s not important. However, they can remember insignificant events just as clearly,” Allison Langdon says. “That’s why a lot of people with the condition say it’s a burden.”
Photo: Rebecca Sharrock
Even walking on the street and lightly bumping into somebody triggers distant memories from Becky’s childhood, when a boy bumped into her and knocked her over. She’s taken right back to that time, vividly reliving the experience all over again. Having to emotionally relieve painful experiences of her life constantly is a heavy burden, the 27-year-old admits.
Also, people with HSAM often do poorly in school, because they have problems filtering through all the information, remembering only the important bits. To them, it’s information overload. “You would think you would blitz your tests, but it doesn’t make you a genius,” Allison Langon said.
Becky’s remarkable brain could help scientists find a cure for terrible mental illnesses like Alzheimer’s. Her condition is “the other side of the spectrum” and could hold the secret to treating or even preventing Alzheimer’s.
With permission from
May, 3 2017
“People have told me what I do is dangerous. They have walked away from me at meetings,” says David Unwin, a doctor practising in Southport, UK. Unwin suggests to his patients with type 2 diabetes or who want to lose weight that they do the opposite of what official health advice recommends. He advises them to stop counting calories, eat high-fat foods — including saturated fats — and avoid carbohydrates, namely sugar and starch. Telling people to avoid sugar is uncontroversial; the rest is medical heresy.
But crazy as it sounds, Unwin has found that most of his diabetes patients who follow this advice are getting their blood sugar back under control, and that some are coming off medication they have relied on for years. Those who are overweight are slimming down.
This might seem like just another controversial fad diet, but a growing number of researchers, doctors and nutritionists around the world are backing it, and reporting their findings in peer-reviewed medical journals. Last month, the National Obesity Forum, a UK body for health professionals involved in weight management, made headlines when it overhauled its advice, telling people to ditch calorie-counting, low-fat foods and carbs in favour of fats.
The recommendations provoked a furious backlash from mainstream scientists and dieticians, but they should concern us all. If the advice is to be believed, starchy food isn’t just bad for diabetes, it makes us fat and causes heart attacks. This is analogous to finding that smoking protects people from lung cancer, says David Haslam, an obesity specialist at the Lister Hospital in Stevenage, UK, and head of the National Obesity Forum. “It is terrible,” he says. “We have let people down.”
For decades, standard dietary advice has been to shun fat and fill up on starchy food like bread, potatoes and rice. We are told this is good for our waistlines and our hearts, and is especially important for anyone with diabetes. Guidelines in the UK, the US and Australia, for instance, tell people to fill around a third of their plates with starchy food. When the UK government agency Public Health England revamped its “Eat Well Plate” earlier this year, it cut added fats (such as oils and spreads) down to a mere 1 percent of the recommended food intake.
Fat first came under suspicion when research early last century found that the arterial plaques that can lead to a heart attack contain the fatty compound cholesterol. Then came several studies showing that heart attack rates were higher in countries where people ate more fat, especially saturated fat from meat and dairy foods. Fat was also deemed the enemy of people wanting to stay slim, since it has over twice the calories, gram for gram, as carbohydrates and protein.
From the 1950s onwards, these ideas crystallised into official dietary guidelines, and the health-conscious started switching to leaner cuts of meat, low-fat milk and swapped butter for vegetable-oil based margarines. And they filled up on starchy carbs.
Yet average body weight has continued to climb, as have rates of associated problems such as type 2 diabetes, culminating in what is now arguably a health crisis. In the UK, US and Australia, around two-thirds of the population are either overweight or obese.
Critics of the idea argue that mainstream nutritional advice is based on decades of research, involving many hundreds of thousands of people, showing that a diet too high in saturated fats is bad for the heart.
And yet in the past few years, a body of literature has emerged to suggest that the question of fat might not be as straightforward as we once thought. For instance, a recent analysis of past studies found that diets lower in saturated fat are not significantly associated with less heart disease or stroke. Another found that the effects of reducing saturated fat depended on what people ate instead; there was a small benefit from replacing it with polyunsaturated fats, but no benefit from replacing it with carbs. The best kind of study is a randomised trial that alters people’s diet to see how their health changes. Here too, there is conflicting evidence â€“ some trials show a benefit from reducing saturated fat, while others indicate none or even the opposite.
A high-fat diet could also be concealing other aspects of lifestyle or diet, such as too much sugar or a lack of exercise, which may be the real culprits for heart problems.
It also seems fat is a more diverse food group than it first appeared. Oils from plants tend to be unsaturated fats, liquid at room temperature; we thought of these as “good”, unlike saturated fat, mostly found in meat and dairy products and solid at room temperature. But recent studies suggest that dairy fats, which are saturated, do seem to protect people from type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
The role of insulin resistance, the key problem in diabetes, also seems to be a bigger player in heart problems than we thought. One recent study found it is a bigger heart attack risk factor for men than high blood pressure, high cholesterol and being overweight. “We have been focusing on the wrong things,” says Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist at the Lister Hospital, who is a vocal advocate of low-carbing.
Self-serving scoundrels, all of them. We know these scumbags are really protecting their stocks and salaries. They should be ashamed.
Anyone who claims that law enforcement, liquor, beer and wine companies are independent will be ‘hard pressed’ to explain this one. (pun intended.)
Approximately 25 seconds into the above video MADD spokeswoman Rosalind Donald admits ‘they’re getting the people in place to take care of drugged driving’.
What the mass media doesn’t want the public to know is, who “they” are?
“They” are the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility (FAAR) and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). Their latest report titled Drunk Driving Fatalities in America, claims that drugged driving is on the rise and drunk driving is decreasing.
Shouldn’t we be happy that drunk driving is decreasing?
“As drunken driving has declined, drugged driving has increased dramatically, and many of today’s impaired drivers are combining two or more substances,” said Ralph S. Blackman, president of the foundation, a nonprofit founded and funded by a group of distillers.
Mr. Blackman also claims, that during the past decade 2/3 of drunk driving fatalities had a BAC of .15 or higher and …“during this same period, drugged driving increased nearly 55% .proportionally. Among fatally injured drivers with a known test result, drugs were present in 43% of drivers in 2015, up from 28% in 2006.”
What the report doesn’t mention, is what percentage of drugs were in a person’s blood stream or even if drugs were just found on a passenger. Fyi, there are no scientific tests to determine how much marijuana will make a driver impaired.
Twenty two Attorney’s General work with FAAR
No conflict of interest their right?
The only difference between the two is, liquor companies have the justice system and law enforcement working with them!
This is what happens, when the Feds allow corporations to become more powerful than the state.
“The corporation has become more powerful than the state because the state has allowed it to happen. Over decades, by both Democrats and Republicans, unaccountability has become normalized, barely opposed by politicians or the media class.”
Page 30 of a report titled ‘Drug-Impaired Driving’ reveals, that FAAR has spent $80,000 to train cops to become ‘Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE). DRE’s can allegedly tell what kind of drugs a person is on simply by looking at their pupils! (To find out more about DRE’s click here & here.)
So what’s the truth about drugged driving?
“That’s difficult to say,” replied Jeff Michael, NHTSA’s associate administrator for research and program development. “We don’t have a precise estimate.” The most he was willing to affirm was that the number is “probably not” zero.
In 2015, I warned everyone that the Feds were keeping inaccurate Police drug tests a secret.
With permission from
May 3, 2017
In another huge slap against the mainstream media, a British journalist based in Syria is telling us the true story of the “Assad chemical attack on Syrians.”
In this interview on April 5th with the British Journalist Tom Duggan in Damascus at the French Hospital, the real story about the chemical attack accusations against President Assad is now revealed.
This jives perfectly on the forensic analysis of one noted MIT physicist Professor Theodore Postol ,which says that what was shown in the media was a stage explosion only, and not what had actually occurred on the ground.
These are the reasons why Russia wants an independent investigation of the event, and for which the US side continues to ignore. After all, the Pentagon had already dropped the 59 Tomahawks on Syria in an unprecedented and highly illegal attack on a sovereign country.
Between Tom Duggan, who is actually living and breathing there on the grounds of Syria, and all of the pseudo-journalists sitting at the climate controlled broadcast studios, crunching CIA scripts like clockwork, it’s pretty clear who to believe.
With permission from