I upload various mods to ModDB, so that they may gain some attention. If anyone needs any help with their profile pages send me a PM.
Soursop leaves, Cannabis oil, Vitamin C (dose minimum 1000mg a day) and vitamin B 17, Curcumin, artemisia annua, Colloidal silver, Paw paw and baking soda are all supposed to kill cancer but thanks to Big Pharma's use of Fungicides they don't have the effect since the biomarker of CYP1B1 is suppressed in cancer cells preventing the Salvestrols from being able to target them so it cannot create the anti-cancer fighting agent Piceatannol within your immune system. So EVEN IF your able to get fruits/vegetables that are organic (and there are attempts to prevent anyone from growing organic foods) with plenty of Salvestrols, chances are your immune system has been infested by Fungicides. Basically Big Pharma WANTS YOU TO DIE from cancer WHILE PAYING for CHEMOTHERAPY THAT ALSO KILLS YOU. I think I've had just about enough of this world.
.... essentially they know EXACTLY what they are doing. Its too much of a coincidence for the epidemic of cancer since 1950 roughly the time they started using the fungicides, obesity since they started using Aspartame in 1980, and autism (1/50 as opposed to 1/300 a 600% increase over the last 20 years) since 1990's since they started using vaccines on most children in the UK and tripling the amount of vaccines with booster shots, massively increasing the amount of chemicals a child gets before their immune system is fully developed... made from live virus's and aluminium known to cause brain damage.
from DavidIcke Website
The figures are fantastic.
Some eight million people die every year from cancer worldwide, more than half a million in the United States alone. The global number is predicted to rise to twelve million by 2030.
Cancer is the biggest cause of death for people under 85 and in the US one in four people die from cancer - one in four.
We have our freedoms removed by the day to 'protect the public from terrorism' when all these people are suffering and dying every year from a disease that the bloodline families and their pharmaceutical cartel systematically refuse to cure.
Together we can, yes, but not if the drug companies are involved.
Immense amounts of money are raised through charities every year
to fund the search for a 'cure' that the establishment has no intention of finding.
I highlighted in a newsletter on August 9th how a man called Dr Richard Day, the head of the Rockefeller-controlled eugenics organization, Planned Parenthood, had addressed a meeting of doctors in Pittsburgh in 1969 about the coming transformation of global society.
He asked the doctors to turn off recording equipment and not to take notes before he detailed a long list of changes that were planned. One doctor did take notes, however, and later talked publicly about what was said.
Now, 40 years later, we can see how extraordinarily accurate Day was and you can read that August newsletter in the archive on the website.
The reason I mention him again here is that he told those doctors in 1969:
'We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released.'
Day said that letting people die of cancer would slow down population growth.
'You may as well die of cancer as something else'.
These people no soul and that's why they do what they do.
Big Pharma has no desire to cure cancer when it is making vast fortunes from treating the symptoms with devastating drugs and cell-killing, people-killing poisons like chemotherapy. But it is not primarily even about money. The bloodline families want people to suffer and die earlier than necessary as a way of culling the population.
This is why when anyone outside the Big Pharma cabal discovers an effective way of treating cancer they are immediately targeted by the medical establishment and government agencies.
One such case is the Italian doctor, Tullio Simoncini, a brilliant and courageous man who has refused to bow to the enormous pressure he has faced, and continues to face, after he realized what cancer is and how it can be dealt with.
Simoncini's 'crime' has been to discover that cancer is a fungus caused by Candida, a yeast-like organism that lives in the body in small amounts even in healthy people. The immune system keeps it under control normally, but when the Candida morphs into a powerful fungus some serious health problems can follow - including cancer.
My friend, Mike Lambert, at the Shen Clinic near my home on the Isle of Wight, says of Candida:
'Fungus, and Candida in particular, thrive by eating the body of its host (yours) by dissolving it. It also needs your body to breed, as it can't do this on its own. No wonder in Chronic Fatigue conditions, which can in many cases be attributed to Candida colonization, the sufferer feels so bad both physically and psychologically.'
Tullio Simoncini says that cancer is this Candida fungal infection and that the conventional medical explanation of cancer as a cellular malfunction is plain wrong.
Simoncini is a specialist in oncology (treatment of tumors), diabetes and metabolic disorders, but he is more than that. He is a real doctor who seeks to uncover the truth for the benefit of his patients and refuses to parrot the official version of what doctors should do and think.
He challenges the dogma of 'intellectual conformity' with all its unproven assumptions, lies, manipulation and falsehoods and he has been extremely critical of the medical establishment as it continues to pursue 'treatments' that are useless in curing the global epidemic of cancer.
From the time he entered medicine he realized that something was seriously wrong with the way cancer was treated:
'I see terrible sufferings. I was in a pediatric oncological ward - all the children died. I was suffering when I was looking at the poor, poor children dying with chemo, with radiation.'
His frustration and sorrow at what he was seeing led him to go in search of new ways to understand, and therefore treat, this devastating disease.
He began his journey with an open mind and a blank sheet of paper unsullied by any rigid assumptions pedaled and indoctrinated by mainstream 'medicine' and 'science'.
How many more have to suffer before people stop seeing doctors as all-knowing 'gods'
and realize the stupendous scale of ignorance involved?
Simoncini realized that all cancers acted the same way no matter where they were in the body or what form they took. There had to be a common denominator. He also observed that the cancer 'lumps' were always white.
What else is white? Candida.
Simoncini realized that what mainstream medicine believed to be cell growth going wild - 'cancerous growth' - is actually the immune system producing cells to defend the body from Candida attack.
He says the sequence goes like this:
Candida is normally kept under control by the immune system, but when that becomes undermined and weakened the Candida can expand and build a 'colony'
The Candida eventually penetrates an organ and the immune system has to respond to the threat in another way
This 'way' is to build a defensive barrier with its own cells and this growth is what we call cancer
It is said that the spreading of cancer to other parts of the body is caused by 'malignant' cells escaping from their origin.
Simoncini, however, says this is not the case at all. The spread of cancer is triggered by the real cause of cancer, the Candia fungus, escaping from the original source.
What allows cancer to manifest, as I have been saying in my books for years, is a weakened immune system. When that is working efficiently it deals with the problem before it gets out of hand.
In this case, it keeps the Candida under control.
But look at what has been happening as cancer numbers worldwide have soared and soared. There has been a calculated war on the human immune system that has got more vociferous with every decade.
The immune system is weakened and attacked by food and drink additives, chemical farming, vaccinations, electromagnetic and microwave technology and frequencies, pharmaceutical drugs, the stress of modern 'life', and so much more.
What defenses are today's children going to have when they are given 25 vaccinations and combinations of them, before the age of two - while their immune system is still forming for goodness sake?
This is how the Illuminati families are seeking to instigate a mass cull of the population. By dismantling the body's natural defense to disease.
Now, here's the real shocker. What destroys the immune system quicker than anything else?
You can add radiation to that as well. Chemotherapy is a poison designed to kill cells. Er..., that's it.
The 'cutting-edge' of mainstream cancer 'treatment' is to poison the victim and hope that you kill the cancer cells before you have killed enough healthy cells to kill the patient.
But wait. This chemotherapy poison also kills the cells of the immune system and leaves it shot to pieces. And the Candida is still there.
This devastated immune system cannot respond effectively to the Candida and it takes over other parts of the body to start the process again, so causing the cancer to spread. Even those who appear to have recovered after surgery and chemotherapy and been given 'the all-clear' are just a ticking clock.
Their immune system is now shattered and it is only a matter of time before the Candida triggers a relapse. In other words:
Chemotherapy is killing the people it is supposed to be curing.
Of course, it can never 'cure' anyone of anything, except life. It is a poison destroying the very system that we need to be healthy and strong if we are to be cured.
When Simoncini realized that cancer is a fungal infection, or infestation, he went in search of something that would kill the fungus and so remove the cancer.
He realized that anti-fungal drugs don't work because the fungus quickly mutates to defend itself and then even starts to feed off the drugs that are prescribed to kill it.
Instead, Simoncini found something much, much simpler - sodium bicarbonate. Yes, the main ingredient in good old baking soda (but I stress not the same as baking soda, which has other ingredients).
He used this because it is a powerful destroyer of fungus and, unlike the drugs, the Candida cannot 'adapt' to it.
The patient is given sodium bicarbonate orally and through internal means like an endoscope, a long thin tube that doctors use to see inside the body without surgery. This allows the sodium bicarbonate to be placed directly on the cancer - the fungus.
The ancient Egyptians knew about the healing properties of anti-fungal substances and Indian books going back a thousand years actually recommend 'alkaline of strong potency' for treating cancer.
In 1983, Simoncini treated an Italian man, Gennaro Sangermano, who had been given months to live with lung cancer. A few months later he wasn't dead, he was back to health and the cancer was gone.
More success followed and Simoncini presented his findings to the Italian Department of Health in the hope that they would begin scientifically-approved trials to show that it worked.
But he was to learn the true scale of medical manipulation and deceit.
The authorities not only ignored his documentation, he was disbarred from the Italian Medical Order for prescribing cures that had not been approved. Yep, I really said that - for prescribing cures that had not been approved.
He was subjected to a vicious campaign of ridicule and condemnation by the pathetic media and then jailed for three years for causing 'wrongful death' to patients he had treated. From all angles the word was out - get Simoncini.
The medical establishment said that his claims about sodium bicarbonate were 'crazy' and 'dangerous'. One 'leading doctor' even ludicrously referred to sodium bicarbonate as a 'drug'.
All the time millions of people were dying from cancers that could have been treated effectively. These people don't give a shit.
Tullio Simoncini is, thankfully, no quitter and he has continued to circulate his work on the Internet and in public talks. I heard of him through Mike Lambert at the Shen Clinic and Simoncini spoke there while I was away in the United States.
I know that he is having remarkable success in dramatically reducing and removing altogether even some real late stage cancers using sodium bicarbonate. This can take months in some cases, but in others, like breast cancer where the tumor is easily accessible, it can be days before it is no more.
People are also curing themselves under Simoncini's guidance and at the end of this article I have linked to some videos in which you can hear people talk about their experiences and cures.
I wrote a newsletter last April about the fact that cancer is a fungus in an article about the findings of two British scientists and researchers, Professor Gerry Potter of the Cancer Drug Discovery Group and Professor Dan Burke.
Their combined findings reveal the following ...
Cancer cells have a unique 'biomarker' that normal cells do not, an enzyme called CYP1B1 (pronounced sip-one-bee-one). Enzymes are proteins that 'catalyze' (increase the rate of) chemical reactions.
The CYP1B1 alters the chemical structure of something called salvestrols that are found naturally in many fruit and vegetables. This chemical change turns the salvestrols into an agent that kills cancer cells, but does no harm to healthy cells.
The synchronicity is perfect. The CYP1B1 enzyme appears only in cancer cells and it reacts with salvestrols in fruit and vegetables to create a chemical substance that kills only cancer cells.
But here's the point with regard to cancer being a fungus.
Salvestrols are the natural defense system in fruit and vegetables against fungal attacks and that's why you only find them in those species subject to fungus damage, like strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, grapes, blackcurrants, redcurrants, blackberries, cranberries, apples, pears, green vegetables (especially broccoli and the cabbage family), artichokes, red and yellow peppers, avocados, watercress, asparagus and aubergines.
What's more, the Big Pharma/Big Biotech cartels know all this and they have done two major things to undermine this natural defense from the fungal attack that is cancer.
The chemical fungicide sprays used in modern farming kill fungus artificially and this means the plants and crops do not have to trigger their own defense - salvestrols. You only find them in any amount today in organically grown food
The most widely-used fungicides are very powerful blockers of CYP1B1 and so if you eat enough chemically-produced food it wouldn't matter how many salvestrols you consumed they would not be activated into the cancer-destroying agent they are designed to be
This is not by accident, but by calculated design, as were, and are, the attempts by the establishment to destroy Tullio Simoncini.
The families want people to die of cancer, not be cured of it. They are mentally and emotionally as sick as you can imagine and see humans as sheep and cattle.
They don't care how much distress, suffering and death their manipulation and suppression will cause - the more the better from their insane perspective. And that is what these people are... insane.
But Simoncini refuses to buckle and continues to campaign for what has seen is an effective treatment for cancer, while, in the 'real' world, the number of cancer deaths goes on rising incessantly because of treatments that don't work based on assumptions that aren't true.
It is indeed a crazy, crazy society, but then, from the perspective of the bloodline families, it's meant to be. Thank goodness for courageous and committed people like Tullio Simoncini.
We need more like him - and quick.
What a stark contrast he is to those who serve the medical establishment. When Simoncini spoke at the Shen Clinic a few weeks ago (below video) some local doctors dismissed him before he arrived and ridiculed his views.
Dr. Tullio Simoncini and The Cure of Cancer
They were invited along to his talk, which would have been of enormous potential benefit to their patients. Chairs were reserved for them to hear what Simoncini was saying first hand and give them the chance to ask any questions.
They never came.
Salvestrols Nutritional Supplements for Cancer Survivors
Posted on June 3, 2013
Salvestrols Nutritional Supplements for Cancer Survivors
by Jeffrey Dach MD
Since it is so close and convenient, I go every year to ACAM’s annual Spring meeting at the Westin Diplomat resort here in Hollywood on the beach.
Sometimes the most useful information doesn’t come from the speakers at the podium selected by the ACAM staff. Rather the most useful information may come to you from other doctors attending the meeting.
This was the case last week when I saw Michael Schachter MD at the meeting. and had a chance to catch up since last year. In brief conversation, Dr Michael Schachter mentioned a new anti-cancer nutritional supplement called Salvestrols. He asked me if I had heard about it. I said no, not really. So, he then proceeded over the next few minutes to fill me in on Salvestrols, the topic of this article.
Above left image: courtesy of Michael B Schachter MD web site.
Salvestrols, the Next Paradigm in Cancer Prevention and Treatment.
Left image book cover courtesy Dr. Schaefer. Salvestrols: Nature’s Defence Against Cancer.
What are Salvestrols ?
Salvestrols are naturally occurring extracts of fruits and vegetables which are metabolized by the CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells. While harmless to normal cells, these metabolites will kill cancer cells in a process called apoptosis. These are not drugs. These are very safe nutritional supplements.
A Brief History of the Discovery of the CYP1B1 Enzyme System
They discovered that all cancer cells over-express enzyme CYP 1B1 activity, whereas normal healthy cells do not have this enzyme in appreciable amounts. These two scientist then spent decades working out assays this enzyme, as well as tests and drugs that affect this enzyme system.
Impatient with the length and expense of the drug approval process, Drs. Burke and Potter turned to the natural plant world, and discovered plant compounds which are metabolized by the CYP 1B1 in 2002, calling them “Salvestrols”, a Latin word translated as “to save”. There are 100,000 phytochemicals in nature . Fewer than 50 will be Salvestrols which are metabolized by CYP 1B1 capable of killing cancer cells.
“Standard therapeutic dosing falls between 4,000 and 6,000 points per day depending on the patient’s body mass index (BMI).” (5)
Randomized Trials Vs. Case Reports
Salvestrols are natural supplements of no interest to the pharmaceutical industry, and therefore, no funding for expensive controlled trials. The fact is, we may never have the benefit of randomized trials of Salvestrols to judge its effectiveness. This leaves us in a quandary. How are we to evaluate whether or not this is an effective treatment for cancer? The answer to this question lies in case reports and observational studies.
Salvatrols case reports from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (Vol. 22, No. 4, 2007) (6A)Savestrol Cases Studies_JOM_2007_v22_n04_p177
Case 1. Lung Cancer
A 69-year-old male coughing up blood had bronchoscopy and biopsy confirming inoperable, stage 2-3 squamous-cell carcinoma of the lung. Imaging showed a seven-centimeter chest wall mass with enlarged nodes. The cancer was deemed untreatable and no chemotherapy or radiation therapy recommended.
This patient immediately commenced a diet of fresh, organic fruit, vegetables and juices. Meat, refined sugar and dairy products were eliminated from his diet. In addition, he began Salvestrol supplements (4000 points) per day for six weeks.
At the end of the first week, he was no longer coughing up blood. Within three weeks his diagnosis had been changed from inoperable to operable lung cancer. At the end of three weeks a biopsy of the largest lymph node was taken following a PET scan and it was found to be negative. The diagnosis was again changed to operable lung cancer requiring removal of one lobe of the affected lung.
Six weeks later the patient underwent surgery. The chest surgeon removed the shrunken tumor and a couple of suspicious lymph nodes. During surgery the tumor was found to be clear of the chest wall. Postoperative pathology of the lymph nodes was negative for cancer, and the patient was deemed cancer free.
Published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (Vol. 22, No. 4, 2007) by Brian Schaefer, Hoon Tan, Dan Burke, and Gerard Potter.
Case 2. Melanoma
A 94-year-old woman was diagnosed with stage 4 melanoma on her foot following a biopsy. The melanoma was deemed to be inoperable.
Upon returning home the family started her on a course of Salvestrols, Four (1,000 point) Salvestrol capsules were taken per day,
One year later a physicians visited the woman and found the melanoma was gone and the foot completely healed. The woman was deemed to be cancer free.
Published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (Vol. 22, No. 4, 2007) by Brian Schaefer, Hoon Tan, Dan Burke, and Gerard Potter.
Salvestrol case reports from Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine 25 2010 Dr Brian Schaefer (2)
Case #1. Stage 3 breast cancer- Tumor shrinks 50% on Salvestrols.
A 50-year-old female with a 2.5 cm tumor in the left breast, biopsy proven stage 3 breast cancer. Surgical removal was recommended and a surgery date was scheduled for one month later. Chemotherapy was declined, At the time of original biopsy diagnosis, the patient began Salvestrols (3,500 points per day) taken before meals for three months.. Also, the patient started organic, vegan diet (vegetables, greens, fruits, juices, wheatgrass and tea) and an exercise program of walking and yoga. Salvestrol specific supplements were also taken; biotin, 300mcg; niacin, magnesium by way of a calcium/magnesium tablet, iron,and Vitamin C, 1,000 mg. and selenium (200 mg)
During the one-month wait for surgery, the patient reported the tumor softened, the texture changed and the tumor progressively decreased in size.
At surgery, a the tumor was only 1.3 cm in size, half the diameter one month earlier. The lymph nodes were negative.
One month after surgery, the patient underwent radiotherapy once a day for 30 days, as a preventive measure. She declined chemotherapy.
After three months, Salvestrol dosage was reduced to 2,100 points daily.
13 months after surgery, the patient remains cancer free
Conclusion : Tumour shrinkage during the one-month wait for surgery appears to be due to Salvestrol supplementation, nutrition, and exercise.
Case #2. Stage 2 liver cancer treated with hepatic artery embolisation.
A 73-year-old Korean male with with loss from alcoholic cirhosis had three intrahepatic masses discovered on CAT scan thought to be metastatic hepatoma.
One month later patient started Salvestrol supplements per day (4,200 points per day) for four months. and then reduced to 2,100 points per day). In addition to the Salvestrol supplementation, he began IV vitamin C injections (30 g weekly). This dose was increased gradually to 100 g per week. He also took Niacin for four months after his diagnosis, 250 mg per day for one month and then increased this amount to 500 mg per day for about five months. Eleven months after commencing Salvestrol supplementation he was declared ‘all clear’, cancer free. This case leaves Salvestrol supplementation, high dose Vitamin C, niacin, exercise and mental outlook as the possible candidates to explain his recovery.
Case #3. Colon cancer-clinical diagnosis- no pathologic confirmation
A 64-year-old female with weight loss and abdomenal pain, and distention, blood in the stool and jaundice. Colon cancer was suspected however, the patient declined testing to confirm the diagnosis. She immediately started taking Salvestrols, (3,150 points per day) was maintained for three months. In addition to the Salvestrol supplementation she took a daily multivitamin, one ‘colon green’ capsule per day, one S-adenosyl L-methionine capsule per day and used externally applied castor oil packs on the abdomen four days each week. She reported feeling better within three weeks of Salvestrol supplementation. By seven weeks the abdominal pain and distention had subsided. After seven months of Salvestrol supplementation she was back to normal, attributes her recovery to the Salverstrol Supplements.
Case #4. Prostate cancer- PSA Climbing
A 72-year-old male had been diagnosed with prostate cancer based on climbing PSA (prostate specific antigen). To confirm the diagnosis, patient had a
positive uPM3™13 urine-based genetic test for prostate cancer from Bostwich Laboratories. This test for the PCA3 gene was positive for prostate cancer.
Patient started Salvestrol supplementation with other nutritional supplements: vitamin C; Co-Q10; folic acid; garlic; lycopene; zinc; cranberries; 2 multivitamins without iron; and vitamin E.
Salvestrol dosage With breakfast on Monday, Wednesday and Friday – one Salvestrol Gold (1000 point) capsule.
After a period of three months of Salvestrol Supplementation, PSA test results had returned to within normal limits. PSA tests every three months for one year were all within normal limits.
I have summarized a few more case reports published by Dr. Schaefer in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Sept 2012 . (5)
Case #1: Stage 1 Breast Cancer – Remission after Salvestrols (5)
A 76-year-old female noticed multiple lumps at the surface of her right breast while showering, and biopsy confirmed breast cancer. The patient declined conventional treatment with Femara® (letrozole),an aromatase inhibitor. Instead, The patient started a three week course of 1,400 Salvestrol points daily. One capsule AM with breakfast and one PM, with no additional supplements, alternative treatments, or prescription medications, and no other dietary or lifestyle changes were made.
The patient reported that after 10-12 days of Salvestrol supplementation, breast self-examination revealed the lumps had decreased in size. During the third week of Salvestrol supplementation breast self examination revealed the breast lumps could no longer be felt. There were no adverse side effects from the Salvestrol supplementation. A month after her diagnosis computerized tomography (CAT) and mammograms showed no abnormality. The patient was declared cancer free.
#2 Squamous cell carcinoma the Anus-responds to Salvestrols (5)
A 46-year-old male was diagnosed with biopsy proven squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. Surgery was recommended and declined by the patient. Instead, the patient started twice weekly applications of Aldara® (imiquimod) cream.
Seven years later, squamous cell carcinoma was again confirmed by a repeat biopsy, and again surgery was recommended and declined.
Three years after the second biopsy diagnosis, the anal lesions were appearing much more frequently.
The patient began Salvestrols and XM8 cream (i.e., a natural borage oil based cream) and stopped use of Aldara®.
For three months the patient took one Salvestrol Platinum (1,000 points) capsule per day and applied XM8 cream every two to three days.
After six weeks of Salvestrol use, the lesions were no longer visible. At the end of three months of Salvestrol use, the patient was deemed to be all clear.
Case #3: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia – enlarging nodes- declined radiotherapy after Salvestrol response (5)
An 80-year-old woman presented with a 7 cm left neck mass, and enlarged inguinal and axillary nodes. Biopsy confirmed chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Her condition declined with severe pain in her throat and weight loss. A second biopsy of the throat lesion showed ulcerated tonsil with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. She was referred for radiotherapy. She noted progression of disease in the nexk inguinal and axillary areas.
At this point, the patient started a three month course of Salvestrols with two Salvestrol Platinum (1,000 point) capsules per day. One AM with breakfast and one PM with dinner. She also modified her diet to include more fruits and vegetables.
After one month of Salvestrol supplementation, the patient was feeling better. The enlarged nodes had started to soften and shrink. This improvement prompted the patient to decline radiation therapy.
After two months of Salvestrol supplementation, the tumour in her neck had almost disappeared. At the end of the third month of Salvestrol supplementation the tumours in her neck had completely disappeared. The oncologist reported no evidence of cancer.
Case #4: Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia – response to Salvestrols
A 50-year-old male with BPH had reduced flow and nocturia. PSA was wnl. The patietn was treated with 0.4 mg, of the alpha-adrenergic blocker, Flomax® (tamsulosin). However he had adverse side efefects and discontinued. He then started taking one Salvestrol Gold capsule (350 points) each morning.
Within a month the incidence of nocturia had dropped down to once a night,
He reported stronger urinary flow. After three months of Gold the patient switched to Salvestrol Platinum (1,000 points per capsule). He reported that there was a noticeable improvement in terms of decreased incidence of nocturia and increased strength of flow.
Case #5: Stage 3 Primary Peritoneal Carcinoma-Combined Chemotherapy, surgery and Salvestrols- Complete Remission
A 57-year-old female presented with abdominal distention, loss of appetite, and fatigue. CA-125 was very high, 7,250, and biopsy revealed peritoneal carcinoma, with involvement of the ovaries. The patient then started IV chemotherapy Paclitaxel (for three hours) followed by Carboplatin (for one hour) every three weeks. Ondansetron was prescribed twice daily for two days following chemotherapy to manage nausea and vomiting;
At the same time as the starting chemotherapy, the patient also started three Salvestrol Platinum (2,000 point) capsules per day (total of 6,000 Salvestrol points per day).
One week after starting her chemotherapy and Salvestrols there was a significant reduction in her abdominal swelling.
By week four her CA-125 level had dropped to 4,593.
Her CA-125 level was measured the day she received her third course of chemotherapy (week seven from onset of treatments) and it had dropped to 510.
Her physician noted that she had never seen such a huge fall in CA-125 levels in all her career and was quite taken aback by the results thus far.
During the twelfth week of treatment she received a hysterectomy. The surgeon reported that most of the cancer had been removed except for small residuals. Three weeks after the surgery the CA-125 level had fallen further to 52.
By week 19 of her treatment, the CA-125 had fallen to within normal limits.
Chemotherapy was completed during week 22, and the CA-125 level was measured as 15 (within normal limits).
At week 25 the CA-125 had fallen to 13.
A CT scan was performed during week 28 and the patient was deemed cancer free with a CA-125 level of 11.
This is a very impressive response for stage 3 peritoneal cancer or ovarian cancer following combined treatment with chemotherapy, hysterectomy and Salvestrols.
Conclusion: Case studies on the use of Salvestrols for cancer prevention and treatment are impressive. Have you used Salvestrols? Email to me your experience. using the reply box below this post.
Author: Jeffrey Dach MD
Links and References
pdf files on Salvestrol
Annual International Conference 39th Orthomolecular Medicine Today Early Cancer Detection By Brian Schaefer, D.Phil.(Oxon) ISOM Annual International Conference: 39th Orthomolecular Medicine Today. April 30 – May 2, 2010. Hotel Vancouver, Vancouver, B.C.
2) salvestrol_case_studies JOM_25_2010_Schaefer
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine Vol 25, No. 1, 2010 (with authors Brian A. Schaefer, D.Phil.,Catherine Dooner, B.A, M. Danny Burke, Ph.D, Gerard A. Potter, Ph.D)
3) Salvestrol Update 2012 Ware
Salvestrol Update INTERNATIONAL HEALTH NEWS
William R. Ware, PhD – Editor
NUMBER 229 JULY/AUGUST 2012 21ST YEAR
4) Dr. William R Ware-salvestrols-issue-30
Salvestrols A natural, targeted approach to preventing and treating cancer
By William R. Ware, Ph.D. Faculty of Science
University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada
Issue 30 Jounal of IHP nov dec 2012
Cancer and Related Case Studies Involving Salvestrol and CYP1B1
September 2012 Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine;2012, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p131
Schaefer, Brian A.; Potter, Gerard A.; Wood, Robbie; R.C.S., D.Orth.; R.C.P.S, D. D. Orth.; Burke, M. Danny
6) Salvestrol+testing+journal of Phytotherapy_IJOP_SPRING_2013-1
SPRING 2013. IJOP. The International Journal Of Phytotherapy
6A) Savestrol Cases Studies_JOM_2007_v22_n04_p177
Salvatrols case reports from the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (Vol. 22, No. 4, 2007)
The most significant breakthrough in nutrition since the discovery of vitamins.
Professor Danny Burke
Salvestrols are a new class of natural compounds that have a pharmacological definition rather than a chemical definition. They are defined by the action of the metabolites produced when they are metabolised by the CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells. Simply put, salvestrols are food-based compounds that are metabolised by CYP1B1 to produce metabolites that are anticancer agents. These anticancer agents suppress tumour growth by killing the cancer cells. Salvestrols provide an explanation of the link between diet and cancer and between fruit and vegetable consumption and lower cancer incidence.
There has to be a significant change in the way that we approach food, in the way we grow food and the way that we see our diet.
Anthony Daniels – I never believed that cancer was a curable disease. Now, in the light of what we have discovered, I believe that cancer is curable.
Professor Gerry Potter
Fighting cancer with salvestrols
salvestrol Web seb site
Professor Gerry PotterGerry Potter is a professor of medicinal chemistry in the School of Pharmacy at De Montfort University in Leicester, England. In this department he is Director of the Cancer Drug Discovery Group, a group dedicated to the development and discovery of tumour selective agents for the safe treatment of cancer.Professor Potter had his first experience with cancer at the age of four. His aunt died of cancer and this experience had a profound influence on his subsequent career.He studied chemistry as an undergraduate and completed a final year project on anticancer agents. This took him to the University of Manchester where he investigated cytochrome P450 enzymes.
A Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry was subsequently obtained from the University of London’s Institute of Cancer Research. During his final year of doctoral studies Professor Potter was awarded the SmithKlineBeecham Prize for Chirality in Drug Design and Synthesis.With his Ph.D., in hand Dr. Potter designed and synthesised selective drugs for breast and prostate cancer at the Institute of Cancer Research. His prostate cancer drug, Abiraterone acetate, has recently been licensed as a last line treatment for prostate cancer (at this point it is exceptionally difficult to get a drug licensed as a first line treatment regardless of the drugs performance). This drug is actually an enzyme inhibitor rather than chemotherapy per se. CYP 17 is a human enzyme involved in androgen and oestrogen biosynthesis. Abiraterone inhibits this enzyme shutting off this biosynthesis. Abiraterone is currently working its way through the remaining clinical trial process and the results so far have been exceptional (Attart, et al., 2009). This work subsequently took him to Cambridge where he continued developing chiral (compounds having different left and right handed forms) anticancer agents.
While at Cambridge he was awarded the Royal Society of Chemistry Award for Industrial Innovation. Within a year of receiving this award he was offered his Professorship at De Montfort University. Professor Potter has recently won his third Royal Society of Chemistry Award forIndustrial Innovation for his design and development of Abiraterone acetate. He is the only scientist to win this award more than once.
This cumulative experience pointed to a number of shortcomings of existing anti-cancer agents and helped to form a central theme of his research. Conventional anti-cancer agents are generally toxic, that is, they lack selectivity. As Stellman and Zoloth point out in their literature review of cancer chemotherapeutic agents as occupational hazards, “There is no speculation, however, about the toxicity of most of the cancer chemotherapeutic agents” (Stellman, JM; Zoloth, SR, 1986). Most are equally toxic to healthy tissue as they are to cancerous tissue (e.g., Methotrexate) (Potter, G., 2005). Some are more toxic to healthy tissue than cancerous tissue (e.g., Taxol, Doxorubicin, 5-Fluorouracil) (Potter,G., 2005). Still others are carcinogenic tumour promoters (e.g.,Chlorambucil, Melphalan) while others are both carcinogenic and mutagenic, a situation that can lead to induction of highly aggressive secondary cancers (Potter, G., 2005). Indeed, investigations into the health risks of occupational exposure to anticancer (antineoplastic) drugs have pointed to the increased risk of cancer among health care professionals exposed to these drugs as well as an increased incidence of spontaneous abortions and malformation of the offspring of oncology nurses (Sorsa, et al., 1985; Skov, et al., 1990: Skov, et al., 1992).
Professor Potter is author of over 60 research publications. This research has resulted in his successful patenting of 20 anticancer agents. A common theme throughout his research is the quest for anticancer agents that are selective and harmless to healthy tissue. This research has recently taken Professor Potter into a search for natural anticancer agents that are selective, effective and without side effects. It is this recent research that forms the foundation of the Salvestrol Concept.
movie presentation on Salvestrols
Salvestrols: Does Nature Hold the Answer to Cancer?
Integr Cancer Ther. 2009 Mar;8(1):22-8. doi: 10.1177/1534735408328573. Epub 2008 Dec 30. Nutrition and the prevention and treatment of cancer: association of cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 with the role of fruit and fruit extracts.
Ware WR. Faculty of Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.Recommendations for a healthy or prudent diet include a large number of daily servings of fruits and vegetables, and these 2 classes of food are widely believed to assist in cancer prevention. One potential mechanism that is rarely mentioned in nutritional studies involves the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1, which appears to have the unique properties of being a universal cancer marker overexpressed in cancer cells and having the capability of converting various phytochemicals and synthetic chemicals into substances cytotoxic to these cells. Although these particular features of CYP1B1 have not gone unnoticed, there has been relatively little research aimed at exploiting them. Furthermore, therapeutic and preventive strategies currently being considered based on vaccines against the enzyme or inhibition without the generation of cytotoxins can be questioned because they do not take advantage of the unique properties of this enzyme. In addition, a few relevant case histories have been published that use specially designed fruit extracts containing substrates with demonstrated cytotoxic metabolic products, and these reports provide an initial confirmation of the potential of exploiting the unusual properties of this enzyme for cancer therapy.
Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;41:297-316.
Regulation, function, and tissue-specific expression of cytochrome P450 CYP1B1.
Murray GI, Melvin WT, Greenlee WF, Burke MD. Department of Pathology, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, United Kingdom.Cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 is a relatively recently identified member of the CYP1 gene family. The purpose of this commentary is to review the regulatory mechanisms, metabolic specificity, and tissue-specific expression of this cytochrome P450 and to highlight its unique properties. The regulation of CYP1B1 involves a variety of both transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms. CYP1B1 can metabolize a range of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in vitro but in some cases with a unique stereoselectivity. Estradiol 4-hydroxylation appears to be a characteristic reaction catalyzed by human CYP1B1. However, there are considerable species differences regarding the regulation, metabolic specificity, and tissue-specific expression of this P450. In humans CYP1B1 is overexpressed in tumor cells, and this has important implications for tumor development and progression and the development of anticancer drugs specifically activated by CYP1B1.—————————-
Article by Gerry Potter 16 September 2012 Salvestrols Against Lung Cancer – Health – Cancer The underlying scientific basis for the action of salvestrols against lung cancer cells is discussed followed by examples of the use of salvestrols in treating lung cancer.
Salvestrol Q66 has shown apoptotic effects against lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancer is the leading cause for cancer-related death worldwide and the effectiveness of current treatments is very limited. Researchers reported that Salvestrol Q66 has antiproliferative activity against lung cancer cells both in vitro and in vivo. Cell viability and clonogenic assay showed that Salvestrol Q66 dose-dependently suppressed the proliferation of a human lung adenocarcinoma cells, while having a minimal effect on normal human cells. DNA fragment assay and comet assay demonstrated that Salvestrol Q66 induced lung cancer cell death by apoptosis. Salvestrol Q66-induced cell cycle arrest at G(2)/M phase was detected by Flow cytometric analysis. In addition, Western blot analysis revealed that lung cancer cells pretreated with Salvestrol Q66 showed decreased Bcl-2 and increased Bax protein expression, which were positively correlated with elevated expression of p53 compared to control. Furthermore, Salvestrol Q66 had overt inhibitory effect on the tumor growth in nude mice model was observed in vivo. Taken together, these results suggest that Salvestrol Q66 could induce p53-mediated cell cycle arrest and apoptosis via modulated the Bax:Bcl-2 protein ratio. The conclusion is that Salvestrol Q66 is effective as a potent antitumor agent against lung tumors.
by Brian A Schaefer, D.Phil; Gerard A. Potter, PhD; Robbie Wood, BDS, D.Orth. R.C.S.(Eng), D.D.Orth.R.C.P.S(Glasg); M. Danny Burke, PhD. Source: Health Action, Winter 2012Editor’s
Note: Health Action magazine first reported on the natural anti-cancer supplement Salvestrols in 2005. We’re reprinting with permission shortened versions of three new case studies in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine (Vol 27, No 3, 2012, pp 131-138. www.orthomed.org/jom/jom.html).
Dr Michael Shacter’s Four part series on Integrative Oncology
Townsend Letter 2011 – No mention of Salvestrols here
Integrative Oncology for Clinicians and Cancer Patients: Part 1
by Michael B. Schachter, MD, CNS
Director and Owner, Schachter Center for Complementary Medicine
Integrative Oncology for Clinicians and Cancer Patients: Part 2
by Michael B. Schachter, MD, CNS
Integrative Oncology for Clinicians and Cancer Patients: Part 3
by Michael B. Schachter, MD, CNS
Director and Owner, Schachter Center for Complementary Medicine
Integrative Oncology for Clinicians and Cancer Patients: Part 4
by Michael B. Schachter, MD, CNS
References from the Annual International Conference – 39th Orthomolecular Medicine Today Early Cancer Detection By Brian Schaefer, D.Phil.(Oxon) ISOM Annual International Conference: 39th Orthomolecular Medicine Today.
Attard G, Belldegrun AS, de Bono JS (2005). Selective blockade of androgenic steroid synthesis by novel lyase inhibitors as a therapeutic strategy for treating metastatic prostate cancer. BJU Int. 96 (9): 1241–6.
Attard G, Reid AHM, Yap TA, Raynaud F, Dowsett M, Settatree S, Barrett M, Parker C, Martins V, Folkerd E, Clark J, Cooper CS, Kaye SB, Dearnaley D, Lee G, de Bono JS (2008). Phase I Clinical Trial of a Selective Inhibitor of CYP17, Abiraterone Acetate, Confirms That Castration‐Resistant Prostate Cancer Commonly Remains Hormone Driven. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26: 4563.
Burke, MD. (2009). The silent growth of cancer and its implications for nutritional protection. British Naturopathic Journal, 26:1, 15‐18.
Burke, MD, & Potter, G (2006). Salvestrols … Natural Plant and Cancer Agents? British Naturopathic Journal, 23:1,10‐13.
Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 22, 1: 85‐93.
Li NC, & Wakeman M. (October 2009) High‐performance liquid chromatography comparison of eight beneficial secondary plant metabolites in the flesh and peel or 15 varieties of apples. The Pharmaceutical Journal, supplement Vol. 283, B40.
Li NC, & Wakeman M. (2009) High‐performance liquid chromatography comparison of eight beneficial secondary plant metabolites in the flesh and peel or 15 varieties of apples. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, supplement 1, A132.
McFadyen MCE, Melvin WT, Murray GI (2004) Cytochrome P450 enzymes: Novel options for cancer therapeutics. Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, 3: 363‐371. Mct.aacrjournals.org
McFadyen MCE, Melvin WT, Murray GI (2004) Cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 activity in renal cell carcinoma. British Journal of Cancer 91: 966 971. Nature.com
McFadyen MCE, Cruickshank ME, Miller ID, et al. (2001) Cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 over‐expression in primary and metastatic ovarian cancer. British Journal of Cancer 85:242–6. Nature.com
McFadyen MCE, Breeman S, Payne S, et al. Immunohistochemical localization of cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 in breast cancer with monoclonal antibodies specific for CYP1B1. Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry,1999;47:1457–64.
Expression of cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 in breast cancer McKay Judith A FEBS letters 1995 McKay, Judith A., et al. “ Expression of cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 in breast cancer.” FEBS letters 374.2 (1995): 270-272.
Murray GI, Melvin WT, Greenlee WF, Burke MD, (2001) Regulation, function, and tissue‐specific expression of cytochrome P450 CYP1B1. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 41: 297‐316. Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Murray GI, Taylor MC, McFadyen MCE, McKay JA, Greenlee WF, Burke MD, Melvin WT (1997) Tumor specific expression of cytochrome P450 CYP 1B1. Cancer Research, 57: 3026‐3031.Cancerres.aacrjournals.org
Murray GI, McKay JA, Weaver RJ, et al: (1993) Cytochrome P450 expression is a common molecular event in soft tissue sarcomas. Journal of Pathology, 171:49–52, Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Potter GA, Burke DM (2006) Salvestrols – Natural Products with Tumour Selective Activity. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 21, 1: 34‐36.
Copyright © 2010 CARE Technologies Inc. All rights reserved.
Potter GA (2002) The role of CYP 1B1 as a tumour suppressor enzyme. British Journal of Cancer, 86 (Suppl 1), S12, 2002.
Potter GA, Patterson LH, Wanogho E et al (2002) The cancer preventative agent resveratrol is converted to the anticancer agent piceatonnal by the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP 1B1. British Journal of Cancer, 86: 774‐778. Salvestrol.ca
Schaefer BA, Dooner C, Burke DM, Potter GA, (2010) Nutrition and Cancer: Further Case Studies Involving Salvestrol. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 25, 1: 17‐23.
Schaefer BA, Hoon LT, Burke DM, Potter GA, (2007) Nutrition and Cancer: Salvestrol Case Studies. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 22, 4: 177‐182.
Ware WR, (2009) Nutrition and the Prevention and Treatment of Cancer: Association of Cytochrome P450 CYP1B1 With the Role of Fruit and Fruit Extracts. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 8, 1: 22‐28.
Ware WR, (2009) P450 CYP1B1 mediated fluorescent tumor markers: A potentially useful approach for photodynamic therapy, diagnosis and establishing surgical margins. Medical Hypotheses, 72: 67‐70. Medical‐hypotheses.com/article/S0306‐9877(08)00428‐3/abstract
Salvestrols: Nature’s Defence Against Cancer: Linking Diet and Cancer [Paperback]
Dr. Brian A Schaefer
Salvestrols are a new class of natural compounds that have a pharmacological definition rather than a chemical definition. They are defined by the action of the metabolites produced when they are metabolised by the CYP1B1 enzyme in cancer cells. Simply put, salvestrols are food-based compounds that are metabolised by CYP1B1 to produce metabolites that are anticancer agents. These anticancer agents suppress tumour growth by killing the cancer cells. Salvestrols provide an explanation of the link between diet and cancer and between fruit and vegetable consumption and lower cancer incidence.
The Research Team
Professor Gerry Potter has dedicated his career to studying cancer, its detection and treatment. He has a Ph.D. in Medicinal Chemistry from the University of London’s Institute of Cancer Research and, during his final year of doctoral studies, Professor Potter was awarded the SmithKline Beecham Prize for Chirality in Drug Design and Synthesis. Dr. Potter has designed and synthesized selective drugs for breast and prostate cancer at the Institute of Cancer Research. His prostate cancer drug, Abiraterone, is undergoing clinical trials and the results so far have been exceptional.
At Cambridge University, Professor Potter developed chiral (compounds with different left and right-handed forms) anticancer agents. While there, he won the Royal Society of Chemistry Award for Industrial Innovation. Within a year of this award, he was offered a professorship at De Montfort University in Leicester, UK.
Professor Potter has written more than 60 research publications. His research has resulted in the successful patenting of 20 anticancer agents. A common theme in his research is the quest for anticancer agents that are selective and harmless to healthy tissue.
Professor Dan Burke – Professor Burke has spent most of his life studying and working with cancer, its causes and detection. He studied biochemistry as an undergraduate and received a first class honors degree from the University of London. A place in the Ph.D. program at the University of Surrey followed where he conducted research into drug metabolism.
During the 1970s, Professor Burke invented a set of biochemical tests known as the EROD (ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase) assays. These assays are the premier method of quantifying the activity of particular enzymes. They are fundamental research tools used worldwide in industry and academia alike to facilitate scientific investigations.
Professor Burke served on faculty of the Aberdeen University medical school for nearly 20 years. At Aberdeen, he was offered a professorship and became recognized as an expert on the metabolism, toxicity and interactions of drugs and environmental chemicals. A decade ago, his research group discovered a universal cancer marker that is intrinsic to cancer cells but absent from healthy tissue. This discovery has stimulated important new research on cancer detection, development of new drugs and anticancer vaccines worldwide.
Professor Burke is Emeritus Professor of Pharmaceutical Metabolism at Sunderland University after stepping down as their Dean of Science. He is also the Head of Research at Nature’s Defence (UK) Ltd., in Syston, Leicester, England.
Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Pure Encapsulations Supplements
Click Here for: Dr Dach’s Online Store for Nature’s Sunshine Supplements
Web Site and Discussion Board Links:
The reader is advised to discuss the comments on these pages with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that concerning an answer which appears as an electronically posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. Although identities will remain confidential as much as possible, as I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.
Link to this article: Wp.me
Copyright (c) 2013 Jeffrey Dach MD All Rights Reserved. This article may be reproduced on the internet without permission, provided there is a link to this page and proper credit is given.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
This post is meant to express my after-debate thoughts and a clarification of my position.
I think it was more of a conversation than a debate. We talked about libertarianism and philosophy, with the first half or so consisting more in epistemological and ontological concerns - and emphasis on methodology. Molyneux tends to go on tangents (or to "speechify") sometimes, which kind of makes it hard to make or sustain a point when his tangent has taken it in a completely different direction. He also tends to make analogies that don't hold or are not relevant to your point (for example, Molyneux made an analogy to the absurd scenario of sending someone a letter in the mail saying "letters never get delivered", when I was trying to question "self-ownership" - the analogy simply didn't fit or was not relevant to what I was talking about). It's easy to take an oppurtunity to opine on what is obviously an absurdity, but it may not actually be analagous to what's in question.
What The Hell Does "Ownership" Mean?
I didn't fully express what my issues with UPB are and we didn't really dig into the question of rights theory. My objection to the concept of self-ownership has to do with how it tends to be used in rights theory - I'm not denying that people have physiological control over their bodies, I'm denying that the affirmation of this fact proves rights concepts (this is what Hoppe's argumentation ethics claims to do). I'm also claiming that "ownership" is really a metaphor here - what Stef calls "self-ownership" (physiological control over one's body) is not the same thing as "ownership" as I understand it because "ownership" signifies something to be homesteaded, bought and sold (and surely libertarians do not intend to concieve of one's "self" as such toliterally be "property" in this sense). Such "ownership" of the self is not the same as "ownership" over external objects. These are different senses of the word "ownership" by the very least.
I'm of the view that the "property" (in the descriptive sense of the word) of personhood is distinct from the "property" of ownership. This is part of why I think that the statement "I don't own myself" is perfectly valid - personhood is internal to the subject, while "ownership" is relational between subject and object. I can own things, but those things are not me by the very nature of ownership. The self or the person as a whole (this means both the mind and the body) is not literally "owned" in my view, and it very well should not be. "Ownership" does not refer to physiological control (which is what Molyneux is defining "self-ownership" to be), and this is where the confusion really stems from. A slave-master doesn't have direct physiological control over their slave, but the slave is (at least partially) "owned" by them. And when I say that I own my car, for example, presumably I'm not claiming to have the ability to control it telepathically.
Molyneux also tried to point out that I'm too concerned with what other people think - that I may object "but other people my use this term differently" but what other people think doesn't matter. Well, the entire point is that I myself am the "other people" in this discussion - and that Molyneux is not giving me a chance to express what I mean by my terms. I'm expected to accept hisdefinition of "self-ownership" in order for a debate to occur. The entire point is that I don't define "ownership" as physiological or mental control! When I say "I don't own myself", I am not saying that "I don't have mental intentionality and physiological control" - I'm pointing out that this isn't the same thing as "ownership". Molyneux is conflating "ownership" with "direct control" in this way. Once we understand "ownership" to refer to something other than "direct control" in this sense, then my statement that "I don't own myself" simply isn't even subject to the contradiction that Molyneux wants to point out. That was a good 10-15 minutes of him avoiding my point!
Furthermore, precisely what "self" is being referred to ("self" as body? "self" as mind? "self" as both body and mind?) is often interchanged between different senses throughout the course of a discussion on "self-ownership". Which "self" is it then that we are speaking of? Molyneux seemed to vaguely aknowledge the dualism problem without really solving it - the closest he came to solving it was by proclaiming that the mind owns the body, but I don't find this to be sufficient and I think that the term "ownership" can only be used metaphorically here at best. The line between proclaiming that we are "possessed" by a spirit and proclaiming that the mind owns the body seems rather slim to me.
What The Hell Does "Rights" Mean?
Whenever I actually did bring up the question of rights and prescriptive ethics, Molyneux seemed to mostly avoid addressing it. A few times he denied that rights exist, but the sense in which he is making that claim (I.E. that they do not tangibly exist, nor are they in a platonic realm of forms) isn't in dispute and has nothing to do with the question at hand; it's beside the point and begging the question. This is also confusing because Molyneux actually does advocate rights concepts, so upon closer inspection it comes off as if he's just nitpicking. Clearly, he has a certain concept of liberty that is prescriptive, so I don't see the point of going over the fact that it isn't intrinsic. Of course it isn't intrinsic.
And of course a rights claim isn't gauranteed to be respected, but that's entirely beside the point. That rights aren't gauranteed to be respected or recognized is a separate question than the validity of prescriptive rights claims as such - rights concepts are not meant to be a description of properties of objects. Molyneux's claim that he doesn't believe in rights is definitely a sleight of hand (much like his claim that "the government doesn't exist") - just before (and after) he nitpicked about rights in this way he was essentially claiming that someone's denial of property rights affirms property rights.
But if by "self-ownership" and "property rights", Molyneux is claiming not to refer to prescriptive ethics at all but a meredescription of traits, then how can he simultaneously be claiming to be proving libertarian ethics? And why would he be a libertarian in the first place if all he cares about is a description of traits? Libertarian anarchism is not merely a description of traits - while it may integrate theories about what is into it, and may be based on one to an extent, it is not defined or understood as a mere description about what is, it is understood to be a prescriptive political philosophy.
Ethics or Science?
What's somewhat perplexing is Molyneux's insistance on regarding UPB as if it is just a descriptive methodology, when the main contention in question is in the realm of prescriptive ethics. Molyneux seems to be putting himself foreward as if he's just engaging in rigorous epistemological methodology. It ends up being confusing because while he tends to defend UPB when it is questioned by acting like it isn't prescriptive, at the same time he wants to claim that by using its methodology one can validate ethical theories. But it seems a little strange to say that a purely deductive and deconstructive methodology can validate ethics. And it's as if Molyneux wants to both affirm and deny that he's doing ethical theory at the same time. If UPB is just the scientic method or a description that has nothing to do with prescriptive ethics, then I fail to see why it shouldn't lead us to moral nihilism - and yet Molyneux is definitely not a moral nihilist.
When he's questioned, it's almost as if he plays the role of moral nihilist, as to deny that he engages in moralizing and to act like UPB is just like rigorous scientific description. So when UPB is critisized, Molyneux falls back on characterizing it as just science - an objective description of properties. Of course, ethics is not science, so how could he claim that UPB has anything to do with ethics at all? If it's just a description of "what is" and nothing more, then it has nothing to do with ethics. If it has something to do with ethics, then it cannot be "just the scientific method". If Molyneux really wants to be dealing just with "the scientific method", then technically he shouldn't be talking about ethics at all! For the scientific method isn't meant for ethical propositions - it has nothing (at least directly) to do with the field of ethics at all. There is no such thing as "preferable behavior" in terms of science.
Binaries and Negativistic Methodology
When I brought up my problem with the idea of using a purely deductive and negativistic approach that just rules things out without providing a comprehensive positive case for anything, Molyneux seemed to miss the substance of the concern and talked in terms of the basic binary between truth and falsehood. But what was in question was not the binary between truth and falsehood, it was in the context of more specific questions in which there are a multitude of possible positions. To give a contextual example, if our concern is with finding an answer in a panacea of property rights theories, the binary of "property rights is valid" vs. "property rights is invalid" isn't really relevant. The question at hand in this case is much more complicatedthan that.
The standard positions on a particular question may very well all be false, or some may contain elements of both truth and falsehood, or there may even be no true answer to the question. Not every question is strictly binary in the same way as the true/false dichotomy itself is. The fundamental true/false binary is beside the point. For example, if I rule out the statement that "eating an apple is moral", it does not necessarily follow that the statement that "eating an apple is immoral" is validated. In this case, I would claim that eating an apple is neither moral or immoral - my conception of morality doesn't even cover that question. This is an example showing that not all binaries are "true" or "false".
Or we may be presented with a false dilemma. For example, the false dilemma of either "the mind doesn't exist" (eliminative materialism and epiphenominalism) or "the mind manifests the universe" (solipsism and idealism). In this case, I would claim that neither proposition is true. For another example, if we rule out the statement that "I am happy", it wouldn't necessarily follow that "I am sad" is validated. Perhaps I feel neither happy or sad, or I don't think that either of them can be attributedabsolutely to me in the scenario. Hence, the binaries that we may be presented with on many questions may not mesh with the more fundamental true/false binary as such. Dare I say that when we venture much beyond the true/false binary, many of the rest of the binaries don't hold as absolutes.
My concern is with a methodology that merely rules out positions and then accepts whatever is left without anything positive to prove it and without investigating further. You might be able to collapse someone else's position as contradictary and proceed to rule it out, but that wouldn't necessarily be a "proof" of your position. Neither would a contradiction between the behavior of someone who makes a proposition and their proposition necessarily disprove their position or prove yours. Molyneux seems to deny that he does this with UPB, but I see some ways in which he may very well be doing it, due to the emphasis on the form of argument and the tendency to consider everything to be binary. I think this avoids the detailed substance of concepts and propositions.
Universality and Consistency
Another issue I briefly touched on in the discussion but didn't get to explain is that consistant application of an ethic, strictly speaking, isn't what proves or disproves it - you could theoretically consistantly apply or universalize any rule you want. The test of internally consistent application tells us nothing about the actual content of a premise. One can consistently apply an incorrect premise - one can have a consistantly authoritarian philosophy and its problem would not be one of internal inconsistency but the problem would be the premise itelf. The standard of consistent application alone cannot validate or invalidate an ethical theory because it has no bearing on the actual content of the ethical theory. This is part of why I find UPB to be incomplete or lacking - all it cares about is consistency in application of propositions, but it can say nothing about the content of propositions as such. That doesn't seem to get us anywhere.
Molyneux wants to claim that propositions such as "theft is moral" are not universalizable. Sure they are - all you have to do is form a philosophy in which the rule is absolute. On could theoretically form a philosophy in which "theft is moral" is a universal absolute. If the people proposing such an ethic end up not liking being stolen from or do not always steal everything, this wouldn't prove that their philosophy is internally inconsistant or that its content is incorrect, it would prove that their behavior isn't consistent with their philosophy. Once again, the "contradictions" that Molyneux often point out are not necessarily internalcontradictions in a philosophy or premise but a contradiction between theory and action. And I say: so what? All you have proven, at best, is hypocrisy or dishonesty.
Molyneux seemed to want to distance himself from the idea that a contradiction between philosophy and action proves or disproves a philosophy, yet at the same time he essentially went on to make use of that idea - and almost seems to be trying to derive an ought from an is in the sense of claiming that a performative contradiction made by someone who is denying a certain "ought" is an affirmation of that "ought" (of course, Molyneux will then shrink back into acting as if all he's doing is engaging in the description of properties, not "oughts"). Hence, he used an example of someone saying "property rights are not valid" or "there should not be property rights" and then being confused when the person they made the statement denying or questioning property rights towards ignores them or responds to someone else - implying that the person who made the statement questioning property rights has a sense of "property rights" in terms of being responsible for their own statements (which Molyneux would like to sum up as "self-ownership").
But again, I say: so what? My entire point is that this has no direct bearing on the truth value of their statement! So why bring up such examples other than as a sleight of hand, an analogy to an absurdity that is beside the point? Doesn't Molyneux realize that "property rights" is not the same thing as the fact of control? If someone says "property rights should not be recognized", the fact that they control property is a separate question from "property rights" as such and their statement is not necessarily intended to deny the fact that people have property. "Property rights" refers to an "ought", not the mere fact that someone currently has property as such. It's as if Molyneux is ignoring when terms are used descriptively and prescriptively, and treats prescriptive statements as if they are meant to be descriptive in the attempt to invalidate them. It's as if I said "I shouldn't exist" and you responded with shock asking me "why do you deny your own existance?". Then when I tried to explain to you why I don't think I should continue existing you kept harping on about how ridiculous it is to deny your own existance.
Now that is a valid analogy!
If I have an official video debate with Molyneux, I'm going to have to be sure to bring these points up. It seems like whenever I started to explain my position or make a point, Molyneux would go on to make a tangental point that I don't disagree with in principle (such as pointing out basic performative contradictions in certain ontological claims such as "I don't exist" or screaming "sound doesn't exist" in someone's ear - I fully agree with Molyneux that statements of that sort seem to be self-detonating, but those are not the propositions that I'm talking about and that is irrelevant to the question I'm exploring).
And that avoids addressing what my concern is - it's as if he's trying to lead you into agreement with him on some basic point that isn't directly related to what you are disputing, almost to fool you into agreeing with him on what's in dispute. But I'm not talking about ontological claims and my dispute with UPB is not about ontology - it's about analyzing, justifying and invalidating prescriptive ethics. And that's precisely what Molyneux largely avoided getting into in this discussion, despite the fact that I kept trying to bring it up (he kept shifting the discussion towards ontology and description).
Stefan Molyneux recently had a debate with my friend John (laughingman0X on youtube, which was video recorded using oovoo and consequently put up on Stefbot's channel on youtube. As was to be expected, Molyneux barely directly addressed a single point or argument that was presented to him. Laughingman brought up many of the same concerns that I have, such as the context-dropping and misleading way in which Molyneux uses "self-ownership", the mind/body problem and the incompleteness of an internal consistancy standard for ethics. It doesn't seem like Molyneux wants to meaningfully address such concerns so much as use them as a starting point out of which to build a segway into another context or an implied misrepresentation.
Molyneux uses a definition of self-ownership that is not the same definition that the vast majority of libertarians use. He defines it as a physiological fact of personhood or purposeful action with one's body. In libertarianism, the concept is generally concieved of as a broad negative rights/entitlement claim; the right of self-ownership. However, Molyneux is using the term purely descriptively (as "the fact that you control your own spine"), while libertarians generally use it in a prescriptive context, although sometimes appealing to it as if it were descriptive in order to prove it as a prescription (such as is the case with Hans Hoppe's "argumentation ethics", which is misleading).
Stef did the exact same sleight of hand on the self-ownership question as he did for me. He refuses to address the is/ought gap and the actual argument, and merely repeats that he doesn't believe in rights, then goes on to conflate biological or physiological facts with ethical claims. It's as if he wants UPB to seem like it's just descriptive. But that's not ethics! Where is Stefbot getting any ethics at all, any "oughts",if all he is doing is a scientific description of traits? I've yet to see him actually put foreward a theory of ethics or a justification for any particular ethical proposition; he mostly just acts like he's engaging in a scientific analysis. It's almost as if he purposefully avoids having to actually put foreward an ethical theory by falling back on such a scientific and descriptive mask.
Part of what's confusing about Molyneux is that he wants to treat UPB purely descriptively while simultaneously using it to valididate or invalidate moral propositions. He claims to not believe in rights or entitlement claims and clearly wants UPB to be regarded as a descriptive tool of natural science. At the same time, he wants to treat it as a method applicable to ethics; the ultimate method, in fact. In this way, Molyneux conflates moral propositions with scientific descriptions of traits, and he constantly is making analogies to such scientific descriptions in a discussion or debate about ethics. If anyone questions UPB as an ethical methodology, he tends to respond by acting as if they are questioning the scientific method itself, which is misleading and context-dropping.
Stefbot's analogy to the theory about mammals (in which someone claims that mammals are both warm-blooded and cold-blooded) was a false analogy. Laughingman's example was someone who believed in pacifism and supported the state simultaneously. Stef's analogy does not hold because in laughingman's example neither pacifism or statism are proven or disproven in themselves, they are only shown to contradict eachother when put together and that the person who does so suffers from cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy. The context of Stef's example is a description of traits, which is not laughingman's context, which is the compatability between moral propositions. Stef also refused to actually address the mind/body problem or explain how he concieves of self-ownership in the context of epistemology and metaphysics.
Molyneux was also being misleading with his example of a guy putting a hat on not having any change in properties, and hence on this basis he rules out the moral proposition that guys with hats on can kill while guys without hats on cannot kill. Once again, he very obviously is conflating a description of properties with moral claims. It might be arbitrary and absurd to make the proposition, but the proposition is not meant to be a description of traits. To say that it is inconsistant or not universal because humans do not change properties when they put a hat on is to completely miss the point, because the moral proposition is not necessarily claiming that! Hence, Molyneux has to switch the context to a description of traits in order to try to maintain his point about universality.
What Molyneux either fails to understand or refuses to admit is that moral propositions generally are not meant as scientific descriptions of traits, and that if one were to seriously stick to his method of absolutely clinging to a test of internal consistancy alone then there is nothing particularly illuminating with regard to the validity or invalidity of the actual content of a given proposition beyond its consistancy with itself or its consistency relative to other propositions. In fact, in the absence of any other ethical methodology or theory, UPB should actually lead us to moral nihilism precisely at the point at which this becomes aknowledged, since we are left without any criteria for meaningfully analyzing the content of the values themselves.
Molyneux doesn't seem to understand that universality by itself is not enough. He harps incessantly on about the need for propositions to be universal, and proceeds to act like that's all there is to it. The problem is that universality is only one aspect or criteria, which reveals very little by itself. It's simply naive to act like universality is the only criteria for ethics. It tells us absolutely nothing about what the moral propositions actually mean or imply, even if they are universally applied. UPB doesn't tell us anything meaningful at all beyond that "principles must either be true or false", "principles cannot contradict eachother" and "principles cannot contradict themselves".
We're going to need a lot more than such simplicities to develope a sound ethical theory, and the idea that one has developed a "science of ethics" by merely insisting on consistency is to totally miss the meat of ethical theory and reduce it to nothing more than a test of consistency. But I don't only want to moral theories to be consistant, I want them to be correct, and you need more than consistency to be correct. This "universality for its own sake" is contextless and oversimplisitic, and the reasons for this should be fairly obvious upon reflection. All that Molyneux is saying is that "moral propositions should apply to everyone", and even if we agree with this it still tells us nothing about which moral propositions should apply, I.E. it tells us nothing about the validity or unvalidity of the moral propositions in themselves. This is why UPB is really quite empty of content.
Those who are involved in the libertarian community online are likely to be familiar with Stefan Molyneux and his website Freedomain Radio, in which he has pumped out well over a thousand podcasts on philosophy, politics and psychology. Indeed, there are some people I know who initially entered the libertarian movement through Freedomain Radio, or made the transition from minarchism to anarchism via contact with the website. I myself was influenced by Molyneux when I made the jump from minarchism to anarchism, and I used to be a regular poster at the message boards there. I technically still do occasionally post there, but I'm definitely no longer a regular.
Those who are familiar with these online subcultures also should be aware of some controversy that has arisen over Molyneux and his website. The two basic factions of the controversy, in a nutshell, are those who insist that Molyneux is a cult leader and encourage people to disassociate from Freedomain Radio (this group is more or less lead by the Liberating Minds forum, which functions as a congregation for people who have been banned from Freedomain Radio and those who have defected from it in general) and those who are Molyneux fanboys and will jump to Molyneux's defense at the drop of a hat.
Throughout the escalation of this controversy, I've generally maintained a fairly neutral position. I've expressed that the accusation of Freedomain Radio being a cult is a fairly hefty charge that may very well be exaggerated and some of the people at the Liberating Minds forum clearly have their own spiteful motivations. On the other hand, I am by no means a total Molyneux fanboy and have expressed agreement with some of the concerns people have about Molyneux and the website. Molyneux very obviously does sometimes engage in psychological manipulation on the message boards and during listener call-ins. So I'd like to officially put foreward my position on this matter.
As far as the charge of Freedomain Radio being a cult is concerned, I don't think there is any evidence to indicate that Molyneux initially purposefully set out to start a cult. Furthermore, the fact that it is just a website makes the cult charge a little weak, since there is little to no actual physical contact between members. Until members actually begin regularly meeting at Molyneux's house or coming into direct contact with him, I'm not going to fall into the trend of calling Freedomain Radio a cult. Interaction on an internet message board and a general atmosphere of agreement is a very weak basis to call something a cult, and practically anything could be called a cult on such a criteria.
However, the fact of the matter is that certain regular members of the message board essentialy act as if they were cult members, and Molyneux has done nothing to shy away from this phenomenon. The most devoted fanboys of Molyneux clearly engage in bullying behavior and serve the function of intimidating people into conformity. In short, Molyneux himself doesn't really need to excersize much power as a cult leader, as his fanboys essentially do that job for him. If someone challenges Molyneux about something, philosophical or otherwise, they're more likely to be confronted by a number of Molyneux's fanboys than Molyneux himself. So if it is a cult, it would seem to be a cult in which the dirty work is mostly done by the peons rather then the leader.
To be clear, the atmosphere at Freedomain Radio is one in which questioning Molyneux is frowned upon, and sometimes Molyneux has taken an active role in purging dissenters. An alarming amount of people have been banned from Freedomain Radio simply for persistantly trying to debate Molyneux about something or questioning his character in any way. Molyneux also goes out of his way to create the impression that Freedomain Radio is an exclusive club of superiors relative to the libertarian movement. He blatantly hypes up the significance of his own contribution to or place in the libertarian movement, and his devotees appear to view him as leading the future of the libertarian movement. Molyneux's particular philosophical approach is represented as the only valid approach to libertarianism.
While Molyneux of course denies that his website is a cult, one thing that is rather telling and strange is that there is a section of the forum for new members that literally uses the term "conversion". "How was your conversion experience?". If Molyneux does not wish to be considered a cult leader, it'd be wise of him to shy away from such terminology, as the term "conversion" has religious or cult-like implications. I don't see radical libertarianism as something to "convert" to, as if it's some kind of esoteric creed. Of course, this question more than likely is not a referance to one's change into a libertarian anarchist so much as one's adoption of his particular philosophical approach.
One of the more controversial aspects of Molyneux's ideas is his concept of "defooing". The essence of this concept is that if one's parents or family members are persistantly abusive, either physically or psychologically, and if they refuse to reason with you, you should completely disassociate from them. This aspect of Molyneux's thought rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but I actually largely agree with the fundamental substance of it. This idea by itself should not be construed to imply a cult, nor should it be denounced as pure lunacy. Enabling or codependancy is a big problem in abusive relationships, and I see the essence of this idea as encouraging people to stop being enablers of their abusers.
That being said, from the beginning I thought that Molyneux is too broad in his application of this concept. He seems to already have the conclusion that you should disassociate from your family in his pocket for you, and he often engages in psychological manipulation to get people to talk about their personal lives. He often shifts philosophical conversations completely away from the topic and into questions pertaining to someone's childhood and familial relationships. If you hold a certain idea, insteading of addressing your arguments he may very well shift to a neo-freudian analysis in which he tries to find the roots of why you have that idea in your childhood. This is especially true of Molyneux's viewer call-ins, in which he often gets into long and akward conversations about people's personal lives and clearly is engaging in psychological manipulation to get the listener to embrace a particular conclusion. It's at this point that Freedomain Radio does begin to appear to be a very psychologically manipulative atmosphere.
UPB, which stands for "Universally Preferable Behavior", is the ethical methodology of Stefan Molyneux, which is summed up in his book "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Proof of Secular Ethics" in which he claims to have "slayed the beast of ethics" and is the ultimate proof for libertarianism as a social theory. UPB is very much like a post-objectivist version of Hans Herman Hoppe's "Argumentation Ethics" in that it focuses on apparent contradictions between one's argument and the act or form of argumentation itself. It is ultimately more of a methodology or criteria for validating or invalidating ethical propositions than an ethical theory, and universality is the value that is assumed as the criteria for the analysis. Of course, this reveals what inherently is the initial flaw of UPB, which is that it does not prove the validity of universality in and of itself.
I think that UPB is a great tool for delegitimizing ethical thoeries that inconsistantly apply a principle, but by itself it does not provide a proof of any particular principles. It needs a context (I.E. an ethical theory or set of principles) to function as a tool for analysis. Now, it is of course true that once one whittles away and ultimately deconstructs the alternatives, assuming certain principles, something resembling a libertarian theory of interpersonal ethics emerges as the only rational and consistant ethic with regaurd to human rights. But this process by itself cannot provide us with a comprehensive proof of such a libertarian theory outside of internal consistancy with regaurd to principles. The principles themselves are the contexts that need to be analized and justified themselves as well, and UPB addresses nothing in this regaurd.
Hence, technically UPB can be used to validate any ethical theory so long as that ethical theory applies its principles consistantly. So one could universalize certain principles that justify authoritarianism as well and end up with a perfectly internally consistant ethical theory, but just because an ethical theory is internally consistant does not necessarily mean that its principles are valid. While it might be a necessary condition for them to be valid, it isn't the only condition. The analysis of the consistancy of a set of values only makes sense relative to values. It is erroneous to treat high-order values as ends in themselves in isolation from the values that are related to them. So UPB inevitably just begs the question about which values are valid or invalid. It can only tell us if the application of the overall ethical theory is consistant with the ethical theory and if the overall ethical theory is consistant with itself or not.
Yet Molyneux claims that UPB objectively proves libertarian ethics by itself, which leads him to make some bad arguments and overlook valid criticisms of particular points of contention internal to libertarianism. Hence, he will claim that UPB proves property rights, as if it is a metaphysical given. But a property rights theory must involve certain more fundamental values rather than be treated as an end in and of itself in isolation from other values. The validity of property rights is inherently relative to other values, which need their own justification as it is. In this regaurd, I think that something along the lines of a neo-artistotilean approach to ethics fills in the gaps that UPB cannot, although I restrict this to interpersonal ethics (and hence I break with the objectivists on ethics at such a point and am not really a straight-up artistotilean on ethics because I am a total pluralist when it comes to "personal ethics"). In either case, UPB itself is not and cannot be a source for the actual criteria for property rights, I.E. values.
One aspect of Stefan's UPB approach to ethics that I do agree with is that, in essence, it can only deal with interpersonal ethics, as that which is purely personal and subjective simply cannot be universalized or consistantly applied. A mere cultural preferance or personal bias is outside of the realm of ethics from my perspective, there has to be an interpersonal element for ethics to form. Questions dealing with things that only affect yourself are an ethical black hole that opens up a huge can of worms. This is the sense in which I completely clash with Objectivists over ethics, for while I generally make use of something resembling a rational egoistic view on interpersonal ethics, I don't believe in non-interpersonal ethical claims, which for the Objectivists reduces to the ridiculous maxim that anything that benefits you is ethical and anything that harms you is unethical. To me, this kind of thinking easily leads to socially conservative morality because one has to denounce all sorts of mere personal vices as immoral.
I also agree with ethical universalism when it comes to individual/human rights, which is to say that individual/human rights apply to all individuals/humans, although I don't think that UPB functions as a formal proof of it at all. I actually think that Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty" is better than UPB insofar as it at least tries to actually logically draw out some of the relevant principles, although it ends up using a similar methodology to UPB by ruling out the alternatives to universal human rights through a process analizing consistancy. However, UPB is probably superior to The Ethics of Liberty insofar as it builds on that kind of methodology. Perhaps it could be said that both of them contribute, although I ultimately give Rothbard way more credit with regaurd to libertarian social theory than Molyneux simply because of his historical role in libertarianism.
Ultimately, UPB is hyped up by Molyneux to be something that it isn't, namely, the best and final possible proof for libertarianism. Compared to such hyped up claims, UPB clearly is a failure. To be generous, however, it can have some legitimate uses as a purely critical tool with regaurd to inconsistant ethical theories and hypocrisy in people. It can be used to provide a decent criticism of internally inconsistant authorian theories of interpersonal ethics, it's just that it also can be and has been misused. Despite Molyneux's tendency to treat it as a positive proof, at the end of the day it's only valid use lies in the realm of disproving things or revealing some sort of hypocrisy.
Posted by Brainpolice at 11:12 PM
Labels: Ethics, Hans Hoppe, Libertarianism, Stefan Molyneux
All of this being said, the Liberating Minds group appears to be essentially engaging in a smear campaign on Molyneux, and while I partially agree with their criticisms, I am not one to join a lynching mob. In some circles it has become kind of trendy to smear Molyneux, and I find that to be below me. When there are clearly partisan interests on both sides, I'm not going to purely side with either one of them. Both sides have valid points and their own downfalls. So in many ways my position remains neutral, although my eyes have opened up to the problems at Freedomain Radio over time. So take this analysis with a grain of salt. It is not an official endorsement of either side of the controversy.
This is a response to the following recent video from Stefan Molyneux:
Not only does Stefbot not prove the validity of property rights, he doesn't even adequately define property rights, unless one assumes the broad and akward definition implied by his argument, which is the mere ability to control something. All that his argument really pertains to is the existance of property or the existance of people either excersizing or respecting property rights, which is a different question than the ethical connotations and validity of property rights as a concept. It does not follow from the mere fact that people have property that a particular theory of property rights is justified. Since Stefbot claims to adhere to the is/ought dichotomy, he should have no objection to this point. At best, the argument from performative contradiction that Stefbot gives can be used to reveal the hypocrisy of claiming to oppose property rights while excerisizing and respecting them in one's behavior, but it doesn't constitute a sufficient proof of property rights as an ethical theory in and of itself.
To put the matter positively, a property right is a claim of decision-making power over something, and a theory of property rights is a criteria for justifying such decision-making power. To put the matter negatively, a property right is a claim of exclusion from any other person to have decision-making power over something, although this decision-making power can be excersized in a mutual or shared way. People can come to mutual agreements by using their personal decision-making power and use it to produce open policies, so by no means does this necessarily imply any sort of atomism, although some of the more rigid theories of property rights may favor a fairly high degree of exclusion and isolation. In either case, it does not necessarily follow from the fact that one has decision-making power over something that one should have such decision-making power in the given scenario or context. George Bush currently wields massive decision-making power over everyone in the territory claimed by the federal government, but this by no means is a "proof" of an ethical property right, it would do the very opposite and violate a libertarian theory of property rights.
The concept of self-ownership is meant to signify that an individual has rightful decision-making power only over themself and in turn noone else has decision-making power over them. It represents a claim of independance and when applied consistantly to human beings it represents an equilibrium in which no individual may trangress their proper boundaries relative to others. Ethically, it is both a prohibition on decision-making by others and a justification for one's decisions. However, using self-ownership in a dualistic propertarian way is misleading because there is nothing external to one's self that is being controlled, so it does not function in the same way as a property right over an external object unless we want to regaurd human beings as something to be owned. So the concept of self-ownership makes a lot more sense when expressed as the idea that people cannot be legitimately owned and that they cannot legitimately have their persons coercively infringed upon by others. It's the idea that a human being is not a mere tool for other human beings.
To be clear, all political positions either imply a particular theory of property rights or are implied by one. Various political philosophies differ over the criteria for property rights (which varies from use and occupancy to labor and trade to tradition and the judgement of various institutions) and the distribution of property titles (which likewise varies from from universalism and egalitarianism to classism and heirarchy). Any political philosophy that accepts the validity of the state, for example, inherently implies or is implied by a theory of property rights that points to the state having decision-making power over a given geographical area and the people who live within it. Even if it is not claimed outright that the state owns the territory, the state is given the implications of ownership, which is characterized by decision-making power. The differences between various proposals for a form of state or methods of state control reduces to the specifics of how the state defines property and hence how the state allocates property titles.
The concept of private property is meant to signify exclusive decision-making power over an object, and the concept of public property is meant to signify shared or collective decision-making power over an object. Internal to both of these approaches to property are questions and disputes over how narrow or wide the decision-making power really is. Furthermore, there are scenarios in which both blur together somewhat. Certain things may become so commonly used that claims of ownership by an individual no longer make sense, and somewhat related to this are questions concerning the concept of intellectual property. There are also questions about inheritance, abandonment and absentee ownership. The extent to which land can legitimately be owned is another question that haunts property theory, as well as questions pertaining to the degree to which violence is justified or unjustified in defense of a given property claim.
Yet none of these relevant questions about property are talked about by Stefbot in his video. The listener or watcher is left wondering what his concept of property rights really is, because all he's really proving is that "people own things". Yea, and so what? Does it follow that whatever happens to be the status quo of ownership is legitimate or that this proves a particular theory of property rights that does not square with the status quo of property allocation? Stefbot doesn't even remotely outline any theory or concept of his own about what specifically he means by property rights in the video. I don't think that he intends to function as a vulgar libertarian, yet the implication of his line of argument would mean that whatever one controls one legitimately owns, which I don't think is what his concept of property rights entails. By insisting on making a performative contradiction argument, he evades having to actually outline and explain the particular details of his concept of property rights. When used in the right context, it's just a neat little logical trick at best. At worst, it's a disingenous argument and a misleading tactic.
It does not logically follow from the fact that someone argues with you that they implicitly really agree with you, and yet that is what Stefbot's way of approaching the issue reduces to: that you implicitly aknowledge the validity of a libertarian theory of universal human rights by engaging in argumentation. And yet, mysteriously, this is used as a way for him to avoid having to directly engage in formal argumentation himself, as he will simply dismiss your argument out of hand without addressing its content. This isn't a way to substantiate a libertarian theory of property rights, and it more than likely will tend to alienate people.
That's essentially what this ultimately seems to boil down to. Keep in mind that during my "debate" with Molyneux, he claimed that he doesn't believe in either "rights" or "oughts" of any sort. He even said that there is no way to prove that you "ought" or "ought not" to do something. Well then why the hell is he talking about ethics, since ethics is a question of what you "ought" and "ought not" to do? Furthermore, if he doesn't believe in "rights", then what the hell was his "proof of property rights" video about? Either he's lieing or he is hopelessly confused and in denial of his own internal contradictions.
Furthermore, it seems rather obvious that Molyneux constructed UPB as an attempt to escape moral nihilism, and he himself even claims that he literally "started with nothing". My reasons for connecting Molyneux to moral nihilism go beyond this, however. I've come to the realization that the logical conclusion of his UPB should in fact be moral nihilism, because it can tell us nothing about the validity of the values themselves (it can only make an analysis of compatibility between values and the consistency between one's values and one's actions, but it ultimately does not tell us what one "ought" or "ought not" to do; and hence it is amoral in practise).
In fact, this point is particularly illuminated by the fact that a good deal of the people who have recently turned on Molyneux (which is made up of some people in the youtube anarchist community) have dived straight into hardcore moral nihilism. This is not purely coincidental. It makes sense because they are merely taking UPB to its logical conclusion, since at the end of the day it involves no actual ethical theory at all. In the absensce of any other ethical theory, once one takes UPB to its logical conclusion and realizes that it cannot actually prove or disprove any sort of moral claim, one is left with nothing.
The consequence of this has been a split with Molyneux and his followers on one side and a bunch of former Molyneux followers turned moral nihilists on the other side. As for me personally, I don't strictly fall on either side of that divide, since I reject both UPB and moral nihilism - fortunately, I have been fairly aquainted with ethical philosophy outside of just UPB to the extent that I don't accept a dichotomy between accepting UPB and being a moral nihilist. On one hand, I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Molyneux and UPB. On the other hand, I do not agree with the hasty conclusion of moral nihilism. It seems short-sighted and oversimplistic that upon the rejection of one particular theory (UPB), one should run straight to moral nihilism.
Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that Molyneux is preaching both moral nihilism and moral realism at the same time. If someone speaks positively of "rights" and "oughts", Molyneux goes on his usual tangent that "rights don't exist" and makes arguments that sound a lot like that of a moral non-cognitivist. On the other hand, as soon as someone proceeds to critisize UPB, suddenly Molyneux defensively acts like a moral realist and proceeds to appeal to science and empiricism as if they validate UPB or as if UPB literally is science and empiricism. This is oppurtunistic, inconsistent and confusing. Does Molyneux advocate libertarian ethics or not? There's no way to be sure, because he perpetually switches positions in order to "win" a debate.
A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.
In a 32-page report that can be downloaded free of charge from Environmental Health Perspectives, the researchers said:
A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006) concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory ...
To summarize the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increased fluoride exposure in drinking water and neurodevelopmental delays. We specifically targeted studies carried out in rural China that have not been widely disseminated, thus complementing the studies that have been included in previous reviews and risk assessment reports ...
Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence ... The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults ...
Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls ...
In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders.
Studies Have Repeatedly Linked Fluoride to Reduced IQ and Brain Damage
There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it’s truly remarkable that it’s NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. Despite the evidence against it, fluoride is still added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.
It amazes me that the medical (and dental) communities are so stubbornly resistant to connect the dots when it comes to the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds). In fact, there have been more than 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage. Fluoride can also increase manganese absorption, compounding problems, since manganese in drinking water has also been linked to lower IQ in children.
Reported effects of fluoride on your brain include:
• Reduction in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors
• Damage to your hippocampus
• Formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer’s disease)
• Reduction in lipid content
• Damage to purkinje cells
• Exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency
• Impaired antioxidant defense systems
• Increased uptake of aluminum
• Accumulation of fluoride in your pineal gland
Six Facts You Need to Know About Water Fluoridation
Harmful Effects Have Been Known for Half a Century
What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their Sept. 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association on Oct. 1, 1944, stated:
Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.
Part of the problem is that it’s an accumulative toxin that, over time, can lead to significant health problems that are not immediately linked to fluoride over-exposure. In a 2005 paper entitled “Fluoride — A Modern Toxic Waste,” Lita Lee, Ph.D. writes:
Yiamouyiannis’ book, Fluoride, The Aging Factor, documents the cumulative effect of tissue damage by fluoride, commonly seen as aging (collagen damage), skin rashes and acne, gastrointestinal disorders, and many other conditions, including osteoporosis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the Safe Water Foundation reported that 30,000 to 50,000 excess deaths occur in the United States each year in areas in which the water contains only one ppm fluoride ...
Fluoride suppresses the immune system: Fluoride inhibits the movement of white blood cells by 70 percent, thereby decreasing their ability to reach their target. Yiamouyiannis cites 15 references in his pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation, that document immunosuppressive effects of as little as 10 percent of the amount of fluoride used in fluoridated water ... Immunosuppressive effects run the gamut, from a cold that won’t go away to increased risk of cancer and other infectious diseases.
Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including:
• Increased lead absorption
• Disrupts synthesis of collagen
• Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
• Muscle disorders
• Thyroid disease
• Bone fractures
• Lowered thyroid function
• Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)
• Inactivates 62 enzymes and inhibits more than 100
• Inhibited formation of antibodies
• Genetic damage and cell death
• Increased tumor and cancer rate
• Disrupted immune system
• Damaged sperm and increased infertility
Suppressed Science: Fluoride Link to Cancer
Long-lost research linking fluoride to cancer has resurfaced in a Dutch film clip featuring Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 cofounded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for more than 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,” referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it. The study demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.
For more by Dr. Joseph Mercola, click here.
For more health news, click here.
I recommend the: 'Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor' and
General of the Waffen SS Leon Degrelle gives information about the unknown history of the German-Polish conflict in 1939 and a tribute of Leon Degrelle.
Zeitgeist - Youtube.com
Hellstrom - Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany
Website that hosts some of these: Secret.tv
The Unknown History
of the 1939 German-Polish Conflict
A Brief Synopsis
By W. R. (Name initialized by The Scriptorium for security reasons.)
This digitized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium. and published here with permission.
To understand how the war in 1939 between Poland and Germany, and consequently WW2, unfolded, it is not sufficient to look at - and accept - the widely-held view that peace-loving and weak little Poland was attacked by an ever-marauding National Socialist Germany. Rather, one must look much deeper into history.
This conflict which cost many millions of lives did not originate with the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, as is still claimed today by over-simplifying historians. It is not just a black-and-white story, but a complex one. It was also not caused by the Polish mobilization of her army two days previous, on August 30, 1939, although the mobilization of a country's army, according to international standards, is equal to a declaration of war on the neighboring country.
German-Polish relations are even today poisoned by centuries-old, deep-seated hatred on the Polish side. For centuries the Poles have been taught from early childhood on Comment added by The Scriptorium: This selfsame "centuries-old, deep-seated hatred on the Polish side" is still very much in evidence today. We invite the reader to consider the vicious invective and threats that a (Polish? at least rabidly pro-Polish!) visitor to our web site saw fit to send us with reference to the article on this page. that Germans were evil and ought to be fought whenever there was a promise of success. Hate on such a scale, as it was and still is promoted in Poland today against her westerly neighbor, eventually leads to a chauvinism that knows few constraints. In Poland, as in all countries, the respective elites use the means accessible to them to shape public sentiment. Traditionally these elites have been the Polish Catholic Church, writers, intellectuals, politicians and the press. For a balanced understanding of the forces which moved Poland inexorably ever closer to the war against Germany, it is essential to investigate the role these components of the Polish society have played in the past. And it is fairly easy to find abundant evidence for the above claim and to trace it from the present time back into the distant past.
"Póki swiat swiatem, Polak Niemcowi nie bedzie bratem." This is a Polish proverb, and translated into English it means: "As long as the world will exist, the Pole will never be the German's brother."1 While the age of this proverb cannot be traced precisely, it is reflected by a recent poll (1989) taken amongst students of three educational establishments in Warsaw, where only four of 135 fourth-graders [ten-year-olds!] declared having amicable feelings toward the German people. Half of the students questioned considered the Germans to be cruel, spiteful and bloodthirsty. One of the students wrote: "The Germans are as bad as wild animals. Such a people oughtn't even to exist. And now they even want to unite!"2 One year later, in 1990, the then Polish Prime Minister Lech Walesa made his feelings towards his German neighbors publicly known: "I do not even shrink from a statement that is not going to make me popular in Germany: if the Germans destabilize Europe anew, in some way or other, then partition is no longer what will have to be resorted to, but rather that country will have to be erased from the map, pure and simple. East and West have at their disposal the advanced technology necessary to carry this verdict out."3
It can reasonably be assumed that these remarks of a public figure like the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Polish president Lech Walesa reflect emotions that are very common in his country. While the three samples of hateful Polish sentiments against Germans were expressed in very recent times, there are many more outbursts of chauvinistic feelings and intentions against Germans in the not too distant past, only some 60 years ago. An example is this Polish slogan from Litzmannstadt, January 1945: "Reich Germans pack your suitcases, ethnic Germans buy your coffins!"4 It is especially important to know this in order to fully understand what this writer proposes: namely, that unrestricted expression of hate and disregard of the rights of others in international affairs can lead to tragedies of unimaginable proportions.
Many years before the differences between Germany and Poland escalated to the point of no return, numerous diplomatic efforts were made by the German government to defuse the ever more dangerous situation the two countries were facing. These efforts were all rejected by Poland. One of them comes to mind: on January 6th, 1939, the German Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop met with the Polish Foreign Minister Josef Beck in Munich to discuss the differences between the two countries. Von Ribbentrop proposed "the following solution: the return of Danzig to Germany. In return, all of Poland's economic interests in this region would be guaranteed, and most generously at that. Germany would be given access to her province of East Prussia by means of an extraterritorial highway and rail line. In return, Germany would guarantee the Corridor and the entire Polish status, in other words, a final and permanent recognition of each nation's borders." Beck replied: "For the first time I am pessimistic..." Particularly in the matter of Danzig I see 'no possibility of cooperation.'"5
The belligerent policy of the Polish leadership was, and is of course, echoed by the public in that country. It goes without saying that a diplomat cannot use the same language as the little man at home can. The desired goal, however, is the same. It is the destruction, and if need be, the extermination of the Germans as Mr. Walesa so clearly stated. A leading role in forging the public view in Poland is that of the Catholic Church. To read what she taught her followers is truly blood-curdling. In 1922 the Polish Canon of Posen, prelate Kos, recited a song of hate which he had borrowed from a 1902 drama by Lucjan Rydel, "Jency" (The Prisoners): "Where the German sets down his foot, the earth bleeds for 100 years. Where the German carries water and drinks, wells are foul for 100 years. Where the German breathes, the plague rages for 100 years. Where the German shakes hands, peace breaks down. He cheats the strong, he robs and dominates the weak, and if there were a path leading straight to Heaven, he wouldn't hesitate to dethrone God Himself. And we would even see the German steal the sun from the sky."6 This is by no means a single, individual case. On August 26th, 1920, the Polish pastor in Adelnau said in a speech: "All Germans residing in Poland ought to be hanged."7 And another Polish proverb: "Zdechly Niemiec, zdechly pies, mala to roznica jest" - "A croaked German, is a croaked dog, is just a small difference".8
Here is the text of another Polish-Catholic war song which was sung in 1848 at the Pan-Slavic Congress in Prague:
"Brothers, take up your scythes! Let us hurry to war!
Poland's oppression is over, we shall tarry no more.
Gather hordes about yourselves. Our enemy, the German, shall fall!
Loot and rob and burn! Let the enemies die a painful death.
He that hangs the German dogs will gain God's reward.
I, the provost, promise you shall attain Heaven for it.
Every sin will be forgiven, even well-planned murder,
If it promotes Polish freedom everywhere.
But curses on the evil one who dares speak well of Germany to us.
Poland shall and must survive. The Pope and God have promised it.
Russia and Prussia must fall. Hail the Polish banner!
So rejoice ye all: Polzka zyje, great and small!"9
Not only did these "Christian" priests excel in rhetoric aimed at cultivating deadly hate against Germans during the pre-1939 years, they also prayed in their churches, "O wielk wojn ludów prosimy Cie, Panie! (We pray to you for the great War of Peoples, oh Lord!)"10
Later, when their wishes came true, they actively participated in murdering unsuspecting German soldiers. "...Cardinal Wyszynski confirmed the fact 'that during the war there was not one single Polish priest who did not fight against the Germans with a weapon in his hand.' The war lasted only three short weeks, the German occupation lasted several years. This explains the extraordinary high number of priest-partisans who even were joined by bishops."11 Further back in history, we find that "The Archbishop of Gnesen, around the turn of the 13th century, had the habit of calling the Germans 'dog heads'. He criticized a bishop from Brixen that he would have preached excellently, had he not been a dog-head and a German."12
To fully understand the implications that this and other hateful utterances about Germans have on the Polish psyche, one has to know that 'dog' is an abusive name that would be hard to top as insult to a German. It is obvious that through this centuries-long conditioning of the common people of Poland by the Catholic hierarchy, from the bishops down to the lowliest clergymen, Polish literature and the press would not be far behind in duplicating the still-continuing vilification of Germans. And indeed there is a plethora of well-documented hostile charges. In his Mythos vom Deutschen in der polnischen Volksüberlieferung und Literatur, Dr. Kurt Lück from Posen explored this propensity to malign Germans. I will repeat here only a few examples in order to illustrate how deeply the Poles are influenced by their elites. In his novel Grazyna, which is used in Polish schools as a learning tool, Mickiewicz uses terms like "psiarnia Krzyzakow" - the dog-pack of the Teutonic Knights . In his novel Pan Tadeusz he writes of "all district presidents, privy councillors, commissaries and all dog-brothers", and in his book Trzech Budrysow he writes of "Krzyxacy psubraty" - "Knights of the Cross, the dog brothers". Henryk Sienkiewicz, in his novel Krzyzacy (Knights of the Cross), repeatedly uses the abusive term "dog-brothers". Jan Kochanowski, in his Proporzec (1569), calls the German Knights of the Cross "pies niepocigniony": unsurpassable dogs. K. Przerwa-Tetmajer, in the short story "Nefzowie": "The German manufacturer is called by the Polish workers rudy pies - red-haired dog."13
It is not difficult to imagine how this perversion of civilized human conduct eventually must lead to a Fascist mentality that was also present in the Polish media. They did not mince words when it came to arousing public fanaticism without restrictions when it was time to go to war against Germany. They were the ultimate instrument for instilling in the public the view that Poland was the peerless power that would chasten Germany by defeating her in a few days. Characteristic of this was, for example, an oil painting that showed Marshal Rydz-Smigly, the Polish commander-in-chief, riding on horseback through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.14 This painting was found by German troops in the Presidential Palace in Warsaw and was not even completely dry. When war finally came, the Germans in Polish territory suffered terribly. They had to bear the unspeakable hate of the Poles. Some 35,000 of them(German authorities then claimed 58,000 murdered Germans!) were murdered, often under the most bestial circumstances. Dr. Kurt Lück (op.cit.) writes on page 271: "Poles had thrown dead dogs into many of the graves of murdered ethnic Germans. Near Neustadt in West Prussia, the Poles slashed open the belly of a captured German officer, tore out his intestines and stuffed a dead dog inside. This report is reliably documented."15 And a German mother grieves for her sons. She writes on October 12th, 1939: "Oh, but that our dear boys [her sons] had to die such terrible deaths. 12 people were lying in the ditch, and all of them had been cruelly beaten to death. Eyes gouged out, skulls smashed, heads split open, teeth knocked out... little Karl had a hole in his head, probably from a stabbing implement. Little Paul had the flesh torn off his arms, and all this while they were still alive. Now they rest in a mass grave of more than 40, free at last of their terror and pain. They have peace now, but I never shall..."16 And between 1919 and 1921 400,000 ethnic Germans fled their homes and crossed the German border in order to save their lives.
I personally once knew a German who told me that after serving in the German army he was drafted into the Polish army after 1945, and that the Poles destroyed German cemeteries and looted the graves in order to get at the golden wedding bands the corpses were still wearing.
What can one say of the hate that speaks from the pages of one of the more popular papers, the largest Polish newspaper Ilustrowany Kurjer Codzienny, which appeared on April 20th, 1929, in Cracow? "Away with the Germans behind their natural border! Let's get rid of them behind the Oder!" "Silesian Oppeln is Polish to the core; just as all of Silesia and all of Pomerania were Polish before the German onslaught!"17
"To absorb all of East Prussia into Poland and to extend our western borders to the Oder and Neisse rivers, that is our goal. It is within reach, and at this moment it is the Polish people's great mission. Our war against Germany will make the world pause in amazement."18
"There will be no peace in Europe until all Polish lands shall have been restored completely to Poland, until the name Prussia, being that of a people long since gone, shall have been wiped from the map of Europe, and until the Germans have moved their capital Berlin farther westwards."19
On October 1923, Stanislaus Grabski, who later was to become Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, announced: "We want to base our relations on love, but there is one kind of love for one's own people and another kind for strangers. Their percentage is decidedly too high here. Posen [which had been given to Poland after the First World War] can show us one way to reduce that percentage from 14% or even 20% to 1½%. The foreign element will have to see if it would not be better off elsewhere. The Polish land is exclusively for the Poles!"20
"(The Germans in Poland) are intelligent enough to realize that in the event of war no enemy on Polish soil will get away alive... The Führer is far away, but the Polish soldiers are close, and in the woods there is no shortage of branches."21
"We are ready to make a pact with the devil if he will help us in the battle against Germany. Hear - against Germany, not just against Hitler. In an upcoming war, German blood will be spilled in rivers such as all of world history has never seen before."22
"Poland's decision of August 30, 1939 that was the basis for general mobilization marked a turning point in the history of Europe. It forced Hitler to wage war at a time when he hoped to gain further unbloody victories."23
Heinz Splittgerber, in his short book Unkenntnis oder Infamie?, quotes a number of Polish sources which reflect the atmosphere in Poland immediately before the hostilities commenced. On August 7th, 1939 the Ilustrowany Kurjer featured an article "which described with provocative effrontery how military units were continually foraying across the border into German territory in order to destroy military installations and to take weapons and tools of the German Wehrmacht back to Poland. Most Polish diplomats and politicians understood that Poland's actions would perforce lead to war. Foreign Minister Beck... tenaciously pursued the bloodthirsty plan of plunging Europe into another great war, since it would presumably result in territorial gains for Poland."24 He goes on to cite some 14 incidents where Polish soldiers aggressively crossed the border, destroying houses, shooting and killing German farmers and customs officers. One of them: "August 29th: "State Police Offices in Elbing, Köslin and Breslau, Main Customs Office in Beuthen and Gleiwitz: Polish soldiers invade Reich German territory, attack against German customs house, shots taken at German customs officials, Polish machine guns stationed on Reich German territory."25
These and many more are the things one must take into account before making the fallacious accusation that Germany was the one to have started WW2. The following quotations are added here to show that not only Poland was bent on war against Germany, but also her ally Great Britain (and France). Although it is still widely believed that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain on September 29th, 1938 (Munich) honestly tried for peace, one has to consider the possibility that his real goals were somewhat different. Only five months later, on February 22nd, 1939, he let the cat out of the bag when he said in Blackburn: "... During the past two days we have discussed the progress of our arms build-up. The figures are indeed overwhelming, perhaps even to such an extent that the people are no longer able even to comprehend them.... Ships, cannons, planes and ammunition are now pouring out of our dock yards and factories in an ever-increasing torrent..."26
Max Klüver writes: "Of the considerable body of evidence that gives cause to doubt whether Chamberlain actually wanted peace, one noteworthy item is a conversation [after Hitler's address to the Reichstag on April 28th,1939, W.R.] between Chamberlain's chief advisor Wilson, and Göring's colleague Wohlthat... When Wohlthat, taking his leave, again stressed his conviction that Hitler did not want war, Wilson's answer was indicative of the fundamental British attitude that could not be a basis for negotiations between equals: 'I said that I was not surprised to hear him say that as I had thought myself that Hitler cannot have overlooked the tremendous increases which we have made in our defensive and offensive preparations, including for instance the very large increase in our Air Force.'"27
And on April 27th, 1939, England mobilized her armed forces. Heinz Splittgerber quotes Dirk Bavendamm, Roosevelts Weg zum Krieg (Ullstein-Verlag, Berlin 1989, p. 593), who writes: "Since England had never yet introduced universal conscription during peacetime, this alone virtually amounted to a declaration of war against Germany. From 1935 to 1939 (before the outbreak of the war) England's annual expenditure on war materials had increased more than five-fold."28
In 1992 and 1993, Max Klüver, another German historian, spent five weeks in the Public Record Office in London searching through documents which, after fifty years of being hidden from public scrutiny, were now open to researchers. He writes in his book Es war nicht Hitlers Krieg: "How little the British cared about Danzig and the allegedly endangered Polish independence is also shown by the following brief prepared for Colonel Beck's visit of April 3 . The brief states: 'Danzig is an artificial structure, the maintenance of which is a bad casus belli. But it is unlikely that the Germans would accept less than a total solution of the Danzig question except for a substantial quid pro quo which could hardly be less than a guarantee of Poland's neutrality." But such a deal would be a bad bargain for England. "It would shake Polish morale, increase their vulnerability to German penetration and so defeat the policy of forming a bloc against German expansion. It should not therefore be to our interest to suggest that the Poles abandon their rights in Danzig on the ground that they are not defensible."29 Klüver concludes: "So there we have it clearly stated: in the own British interest, the matter of Danzig must not be solved and peace preserved. The British guarantee to Poland, however, had reinforced the Polish in their stubbornness and made them completely obdurate where any solution to the Danzig question was concerned."30 The American Professor Dr. Burton Klein, a Jewish economist, wrote in his book Germany's Economic Preparations for War: "Germany produced butter as well as 'cannons', and much more butter and much fewer cannons than was generally assumed."31 And again: "The overall state of the German war economy ... was not that of a nation geared towards total war, but rather that of a national economy mobilized at first only for small and locally restricted wars and which only later succumbed to the pressure of military necessity after it had become an incontrovertible fact. For instance, in the fall of 1939 the German preparations for provision with steel, oil and other important raw materials were anything but adequate for an intense engagement with the Great Powers."32 One only has to compare Mr. Klein's observations with what Mr. Bavendamm wrote about the British preparations for a major war at the same time, and the blurred picture that is painted by historians becomes much more transparent: the Germans were not the ones to provoke WW2.
Besides Chamberlain, there were others in influential and powerful positions in England who were much more outspoken about their wishes. Winston Churchill, for instance, said before the House of Commons on October 5th, 1938: "... but there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that Power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onwards course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force."33
Hitler, of course, knew this very well. In Saarbrücken, on October 9th, 1938 he said: "...All it would take would be for Mr. Duff Cooper or Mr. Eden or Mr. Churchill to come to power in England instead of Chamberlain, and we know very well that it would be the goal of these men to immediately start a new world war. They do not even try to disguise their intents, they state them openly..."34
As we all know, the British government under Chamberlain gave Poland the guarantee that England would come to its aid if Poland should be attacked. This was on March 31st, 1939. Its purpose was to incite Poland to escalate its endeavors for war against Germany. It happened as planned: England declared war on Germany on September 3rd, 1939, but not on the Soviet Union who also attacked Poland, and this is proof enough that it was England's (and Chamberlain's) intention in the first place to make war on Germany. Thus WW2 was arranged by a complicity between Britain and Poland. It was not Hitler's war, it was England's and Poland's war. The Poles were merely the stooges. Some of them knew it too - Jules Lukasiewicz, the Polish ambassador to Paris, for instance, who on March 29th, 1939 told his foreign minister in Warsaw:
"It is childishly naive and also unfair to suggest to a nation in a position like Poland, to compromise its relations with such a strong neighbour as Germany and to expose the world to the catastrophe of war, for no other reason than to pander to the wishes of Chamberlain's domestic policies. It would be even more naive to assume that the Polish government did not understand the true purpose of this manoeuver and its consequences."35
Sixty years have passed since Poland got her wish. Germany lost large additional areas to Poland. Today these regions can hardly be compared to what they originally were. Houses, farms, the infrastructure, agriculture, even the dikes of the Oder river are decaying. Financial help from Germany goes to Poland as if nothing had happened between the two countries. The 2,000,000 Germans still remaining in Poland are largely forgotten by their brothers in the west. They now suffer the same fate as other Germans did in Poland in earlier times: "In earlier times the aim was already to eradicate all things German. For instance, in the 18th century, the Catholic Germans from Bamberg who had followed their Bishop and immigrated to Poland after the plague were forcibly Polonized; they were denied German church services, German confession and the German catechism, and were reeducated to become Poles. By the time of the First World War these Germans from Bamberg had become so thoroughly Polonized that despite their traditional Bamberg costumes, which they still wore and for which they were still called 'Bamberki', they could no longer speak German."36
Not only is today's German minority in Poland in danger of losing its identity; the same happened even to famous Germans of the past. Veit Stoss, who was born in Nuremberg and died there too, is now called Wit Stwosz, only because in 1440 in Cracow he created the famous high altar in the Marienkirche, 13 meters (39 feet) high and entirely carved from wood. Nikolaus Kopernikus, the famous German astronomer, is now called Mikolaj Kopernik. He lived in Thorn, never spoke a word of Polish, and published his works in Latin. His ancestors were all Germans. The last names of the surviving Germans have been Polonized: Seligman(n), a name also common in the English-speaking world, would now be Swienty! No comparable phenomenon exists in Germany. Poles who immigrated to Germany generations ago still bear their Polish names, and nobody pressures them to change them. They are considered Germans, and they are.
from: Udo Walendy, 'Truth for Germany'.
Source: Udo Walendy, Truth for Germany, map in diagram section between pp. 64-65. As this map shows, Polish chauvinism literally knows no bounds. The world went through the Second World War largely because of Poland and her taste for lands that belong to others. Some of her aspirations she accomplished in 1945, but this map suggests that there may still be more to Polish desires. Even today's Czechia and Slovakia are on the list. As Adam Mickiewicz wrote: "But each of you has in his soul the seeds of the future rights and the extent of the future frontiers."
As far as I as German am concerned, I wholeheartedly agree with what Freda Utley wrote in 1945 after she visited destroyed Germany:
"War propaganda has obscured the true facts of history, otherwise Americans might realize that the German record is no more aggressive, if as aggressive, as that of the French, British and Dutch who conquered huge empires in Asia and Africa while the Germans stayed at home composing music, studying philosophy, and listening to their poets. Not so long ago the Germans were, in fact, among the most 'peace-loving' peoples of the world and might become so again, given a world in which it is possible to live in peace.
"Mistaken as the Boeklers of Germany may be in believing that concessions can be won from the Western powers by negotiation, their attitude proves the willingness of many Germans to trust to peaceful means to obtain their ends."37
The FDA refused to approve Aspartame for a decade because it was shown to be a neurotoxin. And then one year, a new FDA bigwig decided to over-ride his entire board of experts and okay it, only to then quit his job in order to go work for Monsanto's PR firm. Oh yeah, and over one-third of all adverse reactions to foods reported to the FDA are about aspartame.
Scientists have yet to achieve (seemingly) simple things, like successfully domesticate a single wild plant or wild animal. (And no, the silver fox trumpeted by the March 2011 NatGeo magazine as the first domesticated wild animal has been debunked as being a premature proclamation, even according to the Russian scientists themselves.) In addition, how safe should we feel when geneticists openly admit that they only understand 4% of our DNA, specifically the part that codes for our basic genetic blueprint? Just because some corporation can make billions of dollars patenting some GMO doesn't mean it should be forced down the public's throats, especially when nobody knows if it's safe or not. I mean, seriously, the fact that these corporations are fighting so hard AGAINST the labeling of GMO food pretty much tells me everything I need to know.
Whats in our Food? Not even the FDA knows. The US Department of Health has recorded 92(!) symptoms related to aspartame use (its been called AminoSweet since 2010). In fact, over 80% of all complaints filed with the FDA are aspartame related!
Long-Term Carcinogenicity Bioassay on Rats Exposed to Aspartame - Researchgate.net
This Might Explain Why Diet Soda Drinkers Are Often Overweight - Huffingtonpost.com
Aspartame Studies: Correlation of Funding and Outcome:
2004 Documentary Aspartame Sweet Misery - Disclose.tv
The study identified, over 22 years, 1324 non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs), 285 multiple myelomas, and 339 leukemias. They then determined their intake of diet sodas (or pop, depending on your location in the United States).
They determined that:
- Men who had greater than 1 daily serving of diet soda had increased risks of NHLs and multiple myeloma. Women had no observed increased risks.
- They also observed an unexpected elevated risk of NHL with a higher consumption of regular, sugar-sweetened soda in men but not in women.
- Neither regular nor diet soda increased risk of leukemia but were associated with increased leukemia risk when data for men and women were combined.
symptoms: (* trigger or worsens conditions)
Abdominal Pain Anxiety attacks *Arthritis *Asthma Asthmatic Reactions Bloating, Edema (Fluid Retention) *Blood Sugar Control Problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia) *Brain Cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals) Breathing difficulties Burning eyes or throat Burning Urination Chest Pains Chronic cough *Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Confusion *Depression DiarrheaDizziness*EpilepsyExcessive Thirst or Hunger Fatigue Feel unreal*FibromyalgiaFlushing of faceHair Loss (Baldness) or Thinning of Hair Headaches/Migraines dizziness Hearing Loss *Heart palpitations Hives (Urticaria) *Hypertension (High Blood Pressure) Impotency and Sexual Problems 'inability to concentrate' Infection Susceptibility *InsomniaIrritability Itching Joint Pains *Laryngitis*LymphomiaMarked Personality Changes Memory loss*Mental RetardationMenstrual Problems or Changes Migraines and Severe Headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)*Multiple SclerosisMuscle spasms Nausea or Vomiting Numbness or Tingling of Extremities Other Allergic-Like Reactions Panic Attacks*Parkinson's DiseasePhobias Poor memory Rapid Heart Beat Rashes Seizures and Convulsions Slurring of Speech Swallowing Pain Tachycardia (Irregular Heartbeat) Tremors Tinnitus Vertigo Vision Loss Weight gain
Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.
Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr. John W. Olney and consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974, as well as investigations of G.D. Searle's research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.
Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious, including seizures and death. A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as part of aspartame dangers are:
migrainesDizzinessSeizuresNauseaNumbnessMuscle spasmsWeight gainRashesDepressionFatigueIrritabilityTachycardiaInsomniaVision problemsHearing lossHeart palpitationsBreathing difficultiesAnxiety attacksSlurred speechLoss of tasteTinnitusVertigoMemory lossJoint pain
According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame:
Brain tumorsMultiple sclerosisEpilepsyChronic fatigue syndromeParkinson's diseaseAlzheimer'sMental retardationLymphomaBirth defectsFibromyalgiaDiabetes
Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book Prescription for Nutritional Healing, by James and Phyllis Balch lists aspartame under the category of "chemical poison." As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.
Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate or MSG is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.
Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate is why they are referred to as "excitotoxins." They "excite" or stimulate the neural cells to death.
Aspartic acid is an amino acid. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins), it significantly raises the blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate. The excess aspartate and glutamate in the blood plasma shortly after ingesting aspartame or products with free glutamic acid (glutamate precursor) leads to a high level of those neurotransmitters in certain areas of the brain.
The blood brain barrier (BBB), which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins, 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even when intact.
The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:
*Multiple sclerosis (MS)
The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA party-line, recently stated in a review that glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age.
Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid isolated from it's naturally protein-bound state, causing it to become a neurotoxin instead of a non-essential amino acid.
Aspartame in diet sodas, or aspartame in other liquid form are absorbed more quickly and have been shown to spike plasma levels of aspartic acid.
The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:
Headaches/migrainesFatigue (blocks sufficient glucose entry into brain)Anxiety attacksNauseaSleep problemsDepressionAbdominal painsVision problemsAsthma/chest tightness
One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss. Ironically, in 1987, G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of aspartame, undertook a search for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excitatory amino acid damage. Blaylock is one of many scientists and physicians who are concerned about excitatory amino acid damage caused by ingestion of aspartame and MSG.
A few of the many experts who have spoken out against the damage being caused by aspartate and glutamate include Adrienne Samuels, Ph.D., an experimental psychologist specializing in research design. Another is Olney, a professor in the department of psychiatry, School of Medicine, Washington University, a neuroscientist and researcher, and one of the world's foremost authorities on excitotoxins. (He informed Searle in 1971 that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice.)
Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of phenylalanine in the brain (sometimes lethal). It has been shown that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even in persons who do not have PKU.
This is not just a theory, as many people who have eaten large amounts of aspartame over a long period of time and do not have PKU have been shown to have excessive levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of serotonin in the brain to decrease, leading to emotional disorders such as depression. It was shown in human testing that phenylalanine levels of the blood were increased significantly in human subjects who chronically used aspartame.
Even a single use of aspartame raised the blood phenylalanine levels. In his testimony before the U.S. Congress, Dr. Louis J. Elsas showed that high blood phenylalanine can be concentrated in parts of the brain and is especially dangerous for infants and fetuses. He also showed that phenylalanine is metabolized much more efficiently by rodents than by humans.
One account of a case of extremely high phenylalanine levels caused by aspartame was recently published by theWednesday Journal in an article titled "An Aspartame Nightmare." John Cook began drinking six to eight diet drinks every day. His symptoms started out as memory loss and frequent headaches. He began to crave more aspartame-sweetened drinks. His condition deteriorated so much that he experienced wide mood swings and violent rages. Even though he did not suffer from PKU, a blood test revealed a phenylalanine level of 80 mg/dl. He also showed abnormal brain function and brain damage. After he kicked his aspartame habit, his symptoms improved dramatically.
As Blaylock points out in his book, early studies measuring phenylalanine buildup in the brain were flawed. Investigators who measured specific brain regions and not the average throughout the brain notice significant rises in phenylalanine levels. Specifically the hypothalamus, medulla oblongata, and corpus striatum areas of the brain had the largest increases in phenylalanine. Blaylock goes on to point out that excessive buildup of phenylalanine in the brain can cause schizophrenia or make one more susceptible to seizures.
Therefore, long-term, excessive use of aspartame may provide a boost to sales of serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as Prozac and drugs to control schizophrenia and seizures.
Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Some people may remember methanol as the poison that has caused some "skid row" alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin.
The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g. as part of a "food" product such as Jello).
Methanol breaks down into formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde." They recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.
Symptoms from methanol poisoning include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.
Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, director of the food science and nutrition laboratory at Arizona State University: "There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol."
He was so concerned about the unresolved safety issues that he filed suit with the FDA requesting a hearing to address these issues. He asked the FDA to:
"...[S]low down on this soft drink issue long enough to answer some of the important questions. It's not fair that you are leaving the full burden of proof on the few of us who are concerned and have such limited resources. You must remember that you are the American public's last defense. Once you allow usage (of aspartame) there is literally nothing I or my colleagues can do to reverse the course. Aspartame will then join saccharin, the sulfiting agents, and God knows how many other questionable compounds enjoined to insult the human constitution with governmental approval."
Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverage. He then left for a position with G.D. Searle's public relations firm.
It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. The troops of Desert Storm were "treated" to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages, which had been heated to over 86 degrees F in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP (discussed below) may also have been a factor.
In a 1993 act that can only be described as "unconscionable," the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86 degree F (30 degree C).
DKP is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurrence of brain tumors. Olney noticed that DKP, when nitrosated in the gut, produced a compound that was similar to N-nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumor causing chemical. Some authors have said that DKP is produced after aspartame ingestion. I am not sure if that is correct. It is definitely true that DKP is formed in liquid aspartame-containing products during prolonged storage.
G.D. Searle conducted animal experiments on the safety of DKP. The FDA found numerous experimental errors occurred, including "clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling," and many other errors. These sloppy laboratory procedures may explain why both the test and control animals had 16 times more brain tumors than would be expected in experiments of this length.
In an ironic twist, shortly after these experimental errors were discovered, the FDA used guidelines recommended by G.D. Searle to develop the industry-wide FDA standards for good laboratory practices.
DKP has also been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol by FDA Toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verrett in her testimony before the U.S. Senate.
ie Population declines and rises are natural cycles which does not decrease GDP per capita, that remains stable because the population remains largely socially, culturally & religiously unified, with some disadvantages but mostly beneficial! Mating with Islamist's or getting raped by one is not. Japan took in 27 asylum seekers in 2015. 5 of those were muslim and 2 of those gangraped a woman together. I think that pretty much tells you where society should be heading! Nationalism and ethno-nationalism all the way with a ideology that can keep it alive and protected from enemies foreign and domestic!
Discussion between HATTA Tatsuo – President, Asian Growth Research Institute and SAITO Shiro – Executive Research Director at the Japan Center for Economic Research
HATTA Tatsuo – President, Asian Growth Research Institute
SAITO Shiro – Executive Research Director at the Japan Center for Economic Research
Population decline is beginning to cast a dark shadow across Japanese economy. It is considered to reduce the growth rate threatening the sustainability our social security system. But Hatta Tatsuo, President of the Asian Growth Research Institute, who is also chairman of the Government Working Group to Design National Strategic Economic Zones, has a different view. He says there is no need to fear a fall in population. So what is the basis for that? Saito Shiro, executive research director at the Japan Center for Economic Research, asked him.
Saito: We hear it said a lot that one of the greatest problems facing the Japanese economy is the decreasing birthrate and aging population, and population decline. I also feel that the aging of Japan and population decline is a serious problem. But now, I hear that you have a different viewpoint. What actually is your view on the connection between population and economic growth? I think that if the population declines, this becomes a significant constraint on economic development …
Hatta: There certainly are a lot of people who say that. But the rate of population does not affect the growth rate of per capita GDP. Here’s a scatter diagram (Graph A) for the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) member countries over the last forty years showing the average growth rate of GDP per person and the average growth rate of population. This reveals that and there’s absolutely no correlation between the two. For example, in Mexico, where the average annual growth rate of population was whopping 2%, the annual growth rate for the GDP per capita was only 2%. There is even a country with a negative population growth rate having a growth rate of per-capita GDP at more than 5%.
Graph A:Growth of Per Capita GDP and Population
Population Growth Rate %
Source: OECD Health Statistics 2013
However, what about the view that growth rate of total GDP, if not that of GDP per capita, depends on the growth rate of population? In fact even then there is virtually no relation. Graph B shows the growth of Japanese GDP and population over years. It shows that there are periods when the population was growing but GDP was not, and periods when the population was not growing but the GDP was.
The growth rate of population, therefore, should not be seen as a decisive determinant of the growth rate of GDP.
Saito: Yoshikawa Hiroshi, a professor at the University of Tokyo, says the same kind of thing in his economic class column in the Nikkei newspaper. He says that in Japan’s period of rapid development the real GDP base rose every year at around 10% but the population growth rate was around 1%. The remaining 9% has to be explained in terms of other factors.
Hatta: That’s right. Graph B is an updated version of that is Professor Yoshikawa’s book.
Of course if the productivity growth rate is the same, then the higher the growth rate of the working population the higher is the GDP growth rate. However, the degree of variation in the productivity growth rate is far greater than the variation in the growth rate of the working population. Thus, the key determinant of the growth rate of GDP is the productivity growth rate. Indeed, even when population declines, the GDP will grow as long as there is technological development.
Graph B: Population, GDP, and Per Capita
Source: Angus Maddison
* GDP: 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars
Saito: What you are saying is that if we think along the lines of the production function, growth is determined by (1) Productivity (technology etc.), (2) Capital, (3) Labor (population). Population is one factor among three, so when you say that the GDP growth rate is not much influenced by the population growth rate, do you mean that the influence of the other two factors is greater?
Hatta: Yes. If productivity grows, it makes up for low population growth. The annual growth rate has been close to zero recently. Even if it falls to minus 1%, that can be easily made up for by a sufficient growth in productivity.
Saito: At the presently assumed level then, are you saying there is no fear that the Japanese economy will shrink or that Japanese national power will decline?
Hatta: That’s right. There’s no need to worry. Rather it is important to focus on the high potential for growth that the Japanese economy has.
Growth can be brought about from narrowing the productivity gaps among different sectors. If left to the competitive market, resources will flow in the direction of higher productivity, where the rewards are higher. Hence markets allocate resources efficiently.
As a result, sectors with varied productivity coexist. Japan is in this situation now. In this situation re-locating resources from low resource productivity sectors to high productivity sectors increases national productivity. So there is great potential for growth in Japan.
Removing obstacles to the natural flow of resources is called “structural reform,” and in Japan there is great opportunity for structural reform. It is not true, therefore, that the country with declining population must have a low GDP growth rate.
Saito: The government’s Committee for Japan’s Future suggests that the population should be stabilized at around the 100 million level, but do you think this proposal is unnecessary?
HATTA Tatsuo – President, Asian Growth Research Institute
Hatta: When I was at elementary school we learned that Japan’s population was 80 million. My father, who was born in 1900, learned that it was 40 million. How can you decide whether 100 million is right or 120 million is right?
If every country employs a policy of promoting population growth, the world’s resources will run out. What we have observed all over the world is that as a country gets richer, its population growth rate is naturally moderated. Making countries rich seems the most effective way to conserve the world’s resources in the long ran. This is much better than population growth being restrained by precipitously rising prices caused by scarcity of resources.
Saito: So then, actually you mean that the government should adopt a policy of population reduction?
Hatta: No. There is no reason to have artificial policy interference either to raise or to lower the population. In case population continues to grow as a result of no interference, the price mechanism will take care of the resource issue.
What is necessary is to remove artificial barriers suppressing the birthrate.
At present the low birth rate in Tokyo is caused by the shortage of childcare workers and childcare centers, which, in turn, is caused by high entrance barriers to childcare business intended to protect the vested interests of the existing childcare industry and childcare workers.
Another reason for low birth rate in Tokyo is the lack of housing floor space in city centers, which in turn is caused by unnecessary tight floor area ratio regulations in city centers. A typical example is the Otemachi, Marunouchi or Yurakucho area, where there is not one residential building. This is in contrast to the central districts of New York City where residential population density is the highest around the Grand Central Station.
Eliminating unnecessary regulations that has been suppressing child care establishments and residential floor space in the central city will help restore birth rate in Tokyo.
SAITO Shiro – Executive Research Director at the Japan Center for Economic
However, I do not think that numeric targets regarding population need to be set. They are irrelevant to policy.
Saito: Still, in many advanced countries the overwhelming discussion is about how to stop population decline.
Hatta: It is wise to plan an increase in population if soldiers are needed to prepare for war. I hear that thought was originally behind France’s attempt to increase its population. But the greater part of France’s present increase in population is taking place in immigrant families. I don’t think that was the original intention of the French government.
Economic growth is the most important national defense policy. And the most effective policy for economic growth is structural reform leading to increased productivity. A policy of population increase, however, does not necessarily increase productivity, as shown in Graph A.
Saito: A private research institute, the Japan Policy Council (Masuda Hiroya, chairman), predicts that half of the municipalities of Japan will become disappearing regional cities because of population reduction and population outflow. How should we cope with this situation?
Hatta: The council is saying this: “A lot of regional cities are disappearing as a result of population reduction, and hence it is important to put a stop on population reduction. An effective way of putting a stop on the population reduction is to restrain migration into Tokyo where birthrate is low.”
There are a number of problems with this argument. First, even if the birthrate were increased throughout the whole country, the outflow of people from many of the disappearing regional cities would still continue. I am against the government pouring money into the regions trying to stop the outflow of people from these towns. We have been doing exactly that over years. As a result Japan as a whole has been weakened. Instead of vainly trying to stop these localities from declining, we should attempt to remove the regulations that are frustrating the sectors with growth potential.
Second, if the low birthrate in the big municipalities is a problem, the measures to increase the birthrate there should be taken. The measures include reforming regulations that cause a shortage of daycare centers and daycare workers, and removing the regulations that prevent people from living in city centers. Sending money to the regions without reforming the regulations is like trying to stop thinning of a diabetic patient by feeding him more rice at each meal.
Incidentally, this report claims that the so-called Tokyo unipolarization is the cause of the population declines. What is actually happening in Japan, however, is a multipolarization. As you can see in Graph C, there has been a great increase in the population size of Sapporo, Sendai, Nagoya, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka since Japan’s period of high growth. In fact, these cities grew much faster than either Tokyo Metropolis (Tokyo To) or the Tokyo Area Cities (defined as the sum of Yokohama City, Kawasaki City, Chiba City and Tokyo Metropolis) during this period.
Only cities where population declined are Kitakyushu and Osaka. Osaka, which served as the economic headquarters for the Western Economic Area of Japan during the railroad era, was taken over by Tokyo, as air-traffic era arrived, since air travel brought Tokyo within a day trip reach of the whole country. As a result, Osaka began to lose population after the 1970s. This may have caused some people to think that Tokyo unipolarization take place.
Graph C: Population Growth Rates of Major Japanese Cities
Note: Tokyo Area Cities consist of Yokohama City, Kawasaki City, Chiba City and Tokyo Metropolis
Source: Daitoshi Tokei Hikaku Nenpyo
Population loss also took place in smaller cities of 200,000 people or less, which have become in easy reach of nearby larger cities by car. The policy to cope with disappearing regional cities is to facilitate the relocation of people from these municipalities to the larger cities and minimize the pain.
To sum up, the fiscal resources should not be squandered around in country side under the slogans of “population increase” or of “fighting against unipolarization.”
Saito: Well, in order to increase productivity, what specifically needs to be done?
Hatta: There are two main ways to increase productivity.
The first is to promote innovation. This will enable the same amount of input to produce more at the industry level. After the war, technology brought in from overseas was instrumental in Japanese economic growth. In addition, producers engaging in trade were able to introduce various new technologies by taking advantage of scale economies. Thus innovation can be promoted by further liberalizing international trade.
The second is to narrow the productivity gap between sectors, i.e., to carry out structural reform. The Japanese economy has sectors with very low productivity as well as the sectors with very high productivity. An example of the former is agriculture. Labor and capital being dammed up in agriculture by protection policies should be released to the sectors of high productivity.
Natural flow of resources from the low productivity sectors to the high productivity sectors is blocked by artificial barriers. Low productivity sectors are often declining industries and regions that prospered until recently and therefore they retain political strength. Such sectors use their political muscle to block newcomer to protect the interests of incumbent. Removing those barriers is “the structural reform” referred to before. What is needed in Japan at present is structural reform in low productivity sectors where resources are being inefficiently retained.
Saito: Would you give two or three specific examples of where structural reform is necessary in Japan now?
Hatta: One example is the medical equipment field, where medium and small Japanese companies have good development and production capability, and there are lots of good ideas in hospitals too. Bringing these together would cause innovation creating new medical equipments and services. But the government lacks the ability to mediate between them and to examine its safety in a short time. But if a system of effective mediation could be set up there would be great developments of medical equipment and service.
Another example may be found in agriculture. It is often said that it would be necessary to create large-scale farmland, but even in the meso-mountainous region where large-scale farming is impossible, there is plenty of room to produce products with high value added. However it is unlikely that local people have the ability to develop this. It is by the introduction of outside commercial enterprises that innovation will occur. If free entry is allowed to enterprises limited by the existing system, innovation in farming will begin to take place.
Yet another example is development of an international business hub city in Tokyo to compete with Shanghai or Hong Kong. For this, a relaxation of regulations of the floor-area-ratio will help. If that were done Tokyo with its excellent living environment would become an Asian business hub.
Saito: The Working Group to Design National Strategic Economic Zones that you chair is thinking of promoting this kind of structural reform, is it not?
Hatta: Yes, it is. Monetary policy and fiscal policy are both effective in reducing unemployment. But structural reform is effective in raising productivity under full employment. It is best to place structural reform as the basis of growth strategy.
Saito: There always seems to be strong resistance to structural reform.
Hatta: When economy grows, some industries necessarily decline. But declining industries often retain strong political power. Protecting the interests of such industries may seem important to them, but it frustrates overall growth. Growth can be achieved only by allowing them to decline.
For example, just until the opening of Japan at the end of the Edo period (1603–1867) the raw cotton consumed in Japan was domestically produced. But within ten years of the opening of Japan all the raw cotton consumed was imported. This may be viewed as an archetype of structural reform. The farmers who grew the cotton lost their livelihoods, and they had to turn to other crops or move off to the towns. It was because of reforms like this that the outstanding growth of the Meiji period occurred. Also it maybe noted that Maejima Hisoka was able to introduce the postal services to Japan only after overcoming enormous political resistance from the association of traditional express messenger service workers.
After the war, under the “priority production system,” the government gave a lot of support to coal production, and the coal industry achieved great prosperity. But the government then liberalized the import of cheap Middle East oil, which became available in late 50s. As the result, the coal industry collapsed, causing widespread unemployment and impoverishment in coal-mining towns. Despite an enormous political resistance movement, the Ministry of Trade and Industry stuck at the oil liberalization policy. The high growth in the 1960s could not have attained without this policy.
If there is no mechanism to let failing industries fail, the economy as a whole will not be able to grow.
Saito: This will bring pain, won’t it?
Hatta: Indeed it will, and hence Reagan-type liberalization without safety net will meet resistance. If there is a safety net, however, a competitive society can be created with less pain. Structural reform and safety net reform should be carried out together. It is particularly important to improve the welfare system and job training system for the unemployed people of the collapsed enterprises as a result of competition. They can then prepare for the second chances of employment.
In addition, it should be possible for the government to tax on high income earners to secure revenue necessary for improving safety net. The more society provides for second chances, the bolder restructuring can be carried out and the more growth is possible.
Saito: These measures to soften the effect of sudden changes, aren’t they?
Hatta: Yes. It is important to have measures to help workers relocate to high production sectors. For example, at the time of liberalizing oil imports, the government did not pour money into coal producing areas; rather, it provided assistance to former coal miners to help them find new work.
For example, government gave subsidies to the employment of former coalminers. It also built new homes in Tokyo and Osaka, for the former coalminers. The point is that the subsidies were given to the areas which hired ex-coalminers and not given to coal producing areas, which would have hindered the relocation of resources. This is very different from the current farming policy.
Saito: Going back to the start of this discussion, do you mean that raising productivity through structural reform is the best policy to counter the labor shortage?
Hatta: Yes, as we’ve seen, the labor shortage can be overcome by raising productivity through more efficient allocation of workers.
Also, structural reform that removes the institutions artificially suppressing the labor supply can increase labor supply itself. Especially, women’s participation in the work force can be promoted by changing tax and salary systems as well as child care regulations.
For example, removing the income tax deduction for non-working wives given in the salaries of their husbands will reduce the cost of starting to work for housewives. Besides, the tax proceeds can then be used to reduce basic rate of income tax. Also removing the allowance for non-working wives in the salaries of the public servants will encourage their wives to work. Proceeds from this reform could be used to raise the basic salaries of all public servants.
There is also a problem with day care centers. The distribution of subsidies is extremely unfavorable to the centers run by corporations. Regulations prevent day care centers from setting the service charge based on the price mechanism. The result is a serious shortage of day care centers, hindering women participation in the labor market.
Saito: Could you suggest any structural reforms that are effective in countering the labor shortage other than the reform of the labor market for women?
Hatta: Yes. Labor market overall can be made less rigid. The labor market is rigid in the sense that once a person drops out of a large company no other large companies will employ him again. That is because basically a large company is virtually obligated to continue employment until their retirement, and a job vacancy cannot easily come around. If a company could dismiss a low productivity person, it could easily give the vacated position to a person of ability.
In the 1980s Salomon Brothers in the U.S invented mortgage bonds and introduced derivative products to the financial world. The employee who invented this was a high school dropout who worked in the mail dispatch room. Will it be possible also for Japan to put the right person in the right place in this way?
The current Japanese employment laws protect the vested interests of workers with low ability, but take away employment opportunities from workers with outstanding ability. If this situation is reformed, someone who happens to graduate from a good university but has low productivity will no longer be able to retain employment in large enterprises. As a result, able women and workers with high potential productivity will find it easier participate in the labor markets.
Productivity can be improved by invigorating the labor market even when work force is not increased.
Saito: What do you think about immigration?
Hatta: At present the Japanese government policy towards immigration is to welcome highly educated individuals but to decline those without skills. I think this policy is sound.
In regards to welcoming educated individuals, I believe Japan is ahead of the United States. Visas are given to any graduates of universities who are employed in Japanese companies. In the United States, even those gaining doctorates cannot readily acquire permanent residence.
However, graduates from vocational technical schools for apparel or IT in Japan have to return home straight away. The country is not making best use of them. If these people were allowed two or three years of practical training, they could become familiar with Japan’s commercial and employment practices and could build up valuable work experience. When they return home they could put their experience to work and be very effective in disseminating Japanese culture. Incidentally, their practical training would alleviate the labor shortage in Japan a degree.
On the contrary, unskilled immigrants are controlled tightly in Japan. This policy is generally justifiable, since otherwise income inequality would be widened in Japan. For example, although the shortage of nursing workers is acute in Japan, foreign workers should not be brought in to fill this shortage. If they are brought in, the remuneration level for Japanese nursing care workers will fall behind that for other workers even further, expanding the disparity of income within Japan.
Immigrants into the industries where wages are very high due to labor shortage, however, should be viewed differently. In the construction industry, for example, the demand for labor has suddenly risen because of post-earthquake restoration work and the upcoming Olympic Games. As a result there has been a sudden surge in wages. But the training of new workers will take time. Thus, until trained workers start to flow into the market, the wages will be kept at an unnecessarily high level. In this case I believe that within, say, five year period, skilled- workers should be accepted from the overseas provided that the number of immigrants is controlled to keep the wage rate in this area at a sufficiently high level so as to maintain the incentive for Japanese workers to get training in this job. When the time limit is reached, immigrant workers should be asked to return home. Also when construction demand eases in Japan, new visas should not be issued.
Immigration policy should be formed from the stand point that the liberalization would not jeopardize the living standard of the Japanese workers who currently earn below 3 million yen per year.
Saito: There is one more element to growth and that is investment. How should we keep investment rate high?
Hatta: The growth rate of capital is related to aging.
In their younger years people save for retirement, for their children’s education, and for purchase of house. Thus, young people’s consumption is less than their income. In contrast, senior citizens are using up their pensions without earning. Accordingly younger people have a high propensity to save and older people have a low propensity. This explains why national savings rate was high in the 1960s when there were many young people, while it is much lower now when aging has advanced.
So if the savings rate and the investment rate relative to GDP are the same, it might appear that there could be no advance in the accumulation of capital in an aging society. But fortunately, even if domestic savings rate is low, capital can flow in from overseas.
However, in the case of Japan the level of inward foreign direct investment is very low. So it is important to relax the regulations for inbound foreign direct foreign investment in Japan, to promote capital accumulation in Japan.
Saito: Certainly foreign direct investment in Japan is very low.
Hatta: It is. The rate of FDI related to GDP in Japan is lower than that in North Korea.
Saito: Professor Komine Takao of Hosei University says in Population Burdened Society (published by Nikkei Publishing Inc.) that the change in population structure is the problem rather than population decline. I think this is the issue that when the population structure changes, pensions and the like that make up the social security system cannot be maintained.
Hatta: It is true that when the population structure changes, income transfer between generations takes place under pay-as-you-go scheme of social security, under which the working generation bears the burden of paying the contemporary senior citizens’ pensions. It is a system where all gain if the population is continuously increasing. But if the population increase stops, subsequent generations are big losers, and the burden on future generations increases to the point that it is difficult to bear.
Countries with pay-as-you-go scheme try to maximize their population increase. But if this scheme prevailed throughout the world and policies of maximizing population growth were carried out, global resources would soon be depleted. So pension systems need to be changed to a scheme that is neutral to population change, which is the ”fully funded scheme.” If it is difficult to change in one go there should be a reform towards it.
The pension system should be designed so that the relationship between the premiums and the expected benefits is based on the market rate of return in each generation. In this way the tug of war between generations can be eliminated. In effect, the premium payments and the benefits later received are designed to match for the person with an average lifespan. Such a system is called the “fully funded scheme.” Under this scheme the ratio of younger people to older people would not be a problem. With this system, the conflicts between generations would completely disappear.
Unfortunately, however, the Japanese pension system was started as the pay-as-you-go system. The generation that created the pension system did not pay the premium sufficient for their pension benefits but made a system where they will receive large benefits dependent on the next generation. As the size of the younger generation decreased a problem emerged.
(Note) Pay-as-you-go pensions and the funded scheme
The pay-as-you-go scheme is a system where the source of revenue for pensions paid to senior citizens is paid by the current working generation. In contrast, the “fully funded scheme” is a system where pension benefits a cohort receives and its premium payment are related by the market rate of return. This scheme does not burden the contemporary younger generation even at the time of a population decrease.
The two characteristics of the pay-as-you-go scheme are as follows: (1) The pension budget is balanced every year. (2) The rate of return from pension has nothing to do with the market rate of return and fluctuates depending upon the demographic composition of the participants in the pension system. For example, the scheme gives particularly heavy burdens to the cohort with a large population of their parent cohort. The two characteristics of the fully funded scheme are: (1) The pension budget is balanced for every cohort. (2) The rate of return from pension is equal to the market rate of return and is independent of the demographic composition of the economy.
Saito: At any rate, there is a lot of dissatisfaction and unrest among younger people.
Hatta: I think that the reform of the pension system in 2004 was a fundamental reform that moved the pension system toward the fully funded system.
Saito: Is this the rather poorly received the 100 Year Plan for Safety and Security (SS100 Plan)?
Hatta: Yes. The reason why it was poorly received was that “macroeconomic slide” necessary under deflation was not carried out. This was a mismanagement on the part of the administration of the Democratic Party of Japan administration motivated by popularity-seeking. But I believe that the basic concept of the SS100 Plan is sound.
Up until this reform, the premium rate was adjusted every five years by so as to make the revenue from premium equal to the pre-determined benefit payment during the five years. This was the pay-as-you-go system itself. But with the revision of 2004, premiums are no longer adjusted every five years to balance the revenue to the expenditure in that period. Instead, premium rate is fixed for 100 years and the benefit rate is chosen so that the balance of the pension budget is attained in 100 years instead of every five years. If the economic situation changes in the future, the uniform benefit rate is adjusted to balance the budget over 100 years, while keeping the premium rate constant. This adjustment of the benefit rate is called “the macroeconomic slide”. Even if there are sudden changes in the economic situation the amount of the benefit will be adjusted only at gradual speed since income and expenditure are to be balanced over 100 years.
Hatta: By the way, the benefit payment rates cannot be allowed to continue to fall forever. If the replacement rate cuts below 50%, the premium payment rate will have to be gradually raised again, while the benefit payments continue to be reduced. That is to say that those working and those retired will have to jointly share the burden.
The SS100Plan could be viewed as an approximation to the fully funded pension system, whose life time premiums and benefits are balanced for each cohort. At present there is a legacy of the pay-as-you-go days so we are now in the process of premium adjustment, but the final system aimed for is sound. Since it is impossible to move to the fully funded system in the short term, it is wise to take time to reform in this direction.
Apart from the intergenerational problem, big issues of intra generational inequality remain. Premium collection need to be delegated to tax office rather than the social security administrations. Also free riding by full time housewives on the Basic Pension need to bye stopped.
However, I believe that the problems of intergenerational unfairness were basically corrected by the 2004 reforms.
(Note) The SS100 Plan is a pension scheme whose introduction was decided in 2004. The basis was that an upper limit of premium rate was fixed and pension benefits were adjusted so that the revenue from premium will balance the pension benefit expenditure over 100 years. With the SS100 Plan the increase in life expectancy and the decrease of pensioner participants as well as change in price level are taken into account in the new benefit rate, and this adjustment mechanism of benefits called “macroeconomic slide” This mechanism is expected to control the amount of benefits when price level changes. But during the deflation period, this has never been put into effect.
The two characteristics of The SS100 Plan are as follows: (1) The pension budget is balanced for each hundred years, and it is not balanced each year. In years with relatively small number of retirees, for example, the government revenues from premiums would far exceed its benefit expenditure. (2) The rate of return from pension is equal to average market rate of return plus a constant, which represents a uniform burden to share the net benefits of the cohorts before the Plan started. The rate of return is independent of the demographic composition of the economy.
The SS100 Plan could be viewed a pay-as-you-go system with a 100 year rather than a year or five years as the accounting period, but in fact it could also be viewed as an approximation of the fully funded scheme.
Saito: What is your opinion about the issue of raising the beginning age of benefits?
Hatta: The existing system sets total benefits for a retired person determined. Hence, a person who opts for a delay in the beginning of pension benefits should be given higher benefits, accordingly.
Saito: With the SS100 Plan the yield on the pension fund investment is assumed to be at a high level of 4.1% annually, and there is an argument that there may be some embellishment here.
Hatta: The 4.1% is hard to justify from the view of the purpose of the SS100 Plan. The system should use the average yield rate achieved over the last twenty years and to make necessary adjustment from the long-term view.
To date it had been thought that moving to the fully funded method was impossible but the SS100Plan shows that it is possible to move toward that direction. In that sense it was a great reform.
Incidentally, the medical insurance system can be reformed in the same way as the SS100 Plan. A fund can be built up from the premium payments by youth in preparation for old age when people are more likely to get sick.
Saito: In concluding let me confirm once again. Many economic academics and economists, take the view that because of population limits Japan’s long-term potential growth rate is around the 1% level and that there will continue to be low growth. But in our discussion to this point we have considered the perspective that more growth is possible, and do you think for example that a growth rate of 3-4% is possible?
Hatta: It is quite possible. In Japan there are great discrepancies in productivity among various sectors. And for that much Japan has great potential for growth. There is no need to worry about population decline.
Saito: Thank you for giving us so much of your time.
Translation from “Jinko-gensho osoruruni tarazu (No Need to Fear a Fall in Population),” Japan Center for Economic Research Rensai Taidan / Saito-shukan ga kiku boron? Seiron? Jcer.or.jp, June 25, 2014 (Courtesy of Japan Center for Economic Research) [June 2014]
Children as young as 18 months prefer gender-specific toys, claims study
PUBLISHED: 01:35 +11:00, 20 December 2016 | UPDATED: 14:41 +11:00, 20 December 2016
With Christmas on the horizon, choosing what gifts to give can present a huge challenge.
In recent years, campaigners have called for an end to the needless gendering of toys, particularly those aimed at girls.
But are toys aimed specifically at boys or girls sexist?
Writing for The Conversation, Brenda Todd, Senior Lecturer in Psychology at City, University of London, explains how children reacted to gendered toys as part of a study.
She claims that children as young as 18 months - the age at which they are just learning to speak - prefer gender specific toys.
With Christmas on the horizon, choosing what gifts to give can present a huge challenge. In recent years, campaigners have called for an end to the needless gendering of toys, particularly those aimed at girls, with some labelling them as sexist (stock image)
In the run-up to Christmas, many of us, whether we are parents or not, will want to buy a toy as a present for a little boy or girl.
While older children are all too ready to say what they want, choosing for very young children can be tricky – should you stick with the traditional choices: a truck for a boy and a doll for a girl – or should you challenge the stereotypes?
Although toy manufacturers and advertisers tend to promote 'gender-specific' toys, questioning whether boys and girls really are attracted to different kinds of objects is important in furthering our understanding of how gender norms develop.
For example, do sex differences in toy preferences appear as soon as infants can demonstrate them?
Or do they develop with the acquisition of knowledge about their own sex and what adults and other children expect from boys and girls?
There is clear evidence that children over the age of two years typically prefer toys stereotyped to their own sex, but studies involving young babies have to rely on interpretation of their visual behaviour as they are shown toys, or pictures of toys, in a laboratory setting.
So in our research, conducted in collaboration with the University College London, we aimed to discover which 'gender-typed' toys very young girls and boys actually want to play with.
In a study, children were presented with a selection of toys to choose from including a digger, car and ball with the boys in mind, and a doll, cooking pot and pink teddy as the 'girl' toys (stock image)
We studied infants and children aged between nine months and 32 months.
We chose this range because from this age, children can move independently to demonstrate their interests and are going through developmental stages where they learn about what it means to be either a boy or a girl.
And with their parent's permission, we decided to study children in multicultural London nurseries rather than in their homes or our laboratory, where the presence of their parents might influence their behaviour.
Before choosing toys for our research, we carried out a survey among local adults, asking them 'which toy comes to mind when you are thinking of a young boy or a young girl?'
Results from the 47 girls and 54 boys who took part in our study showed an overwhelming and highly significant preference for toys typed to the child's gender.
Among the very youngest infants – aged nine to 12 months – the researchers found that all of the boys spent some time playing with the ball.
And that playing with the ball accounted for half of the total time boys played with the toys.
In contrast, the youngest girls played with the cooking pot for a similar proportion of the time.
There was little interest in the teddies from either boys or girls.
Finding sex difference in the toy preferences of boys and girls aged less than 18 months old, suggests these differences and preferences are there before extensive socialisation.
But such predispositions may be modified as children are able to label themselves as boys or girls and learn more about social norms.
The research also found that while boys' preferences for male-typed toys increased across our chosen age groups, the pattern for girls was rather different.
Although girls of all ages preferred 'female-typed' toys, the youngest group showed the strongest preference.
And both boys and girls increasing preferred 'boy' toys as they approached their third birthday.
Our final line-up included a digger, car and ball with the boys in mind, and a doll, cooking pot and pink teddy as the 'girl' toys.
And as previous research has shown that colour can also guide toy preferences, we added a blue teddy into the mix to see whether that would appeal more to the boys.
The toys were arranged in a semi-circle, one metre away from the child, so that they needed to move independently to make their selections.
We then recorded the times each child played with each toy.
Results from the 47 girls and 54 boys who took part in our study showed an overwhelming and highly significant preference for toys typed to the child's gender.
When we broke down the results into narrower age groups, chosen to reflect their stage of gender knowledge development, we found the same results.
Among the very youngest infants – aged nine to 12 months – we found that all of the boys spent some time playing with the ball.
And that playing with the ball accounted for half of the total time boys played with the toys.
In contrast, the youngest girls played with the cooking pot for a similar proportion of the time.
There was little interest in the teddies from either boys or girls.
Finding sex difference in the toy preferences of boys and girls aged less than 18 months old, suggests these differences and preferences are there before extensive socialisation.
But such predispositions may be modified as children are able to label themselves as boys or girls and learn more about social norms.
Our research also found that while boys' preferences for male-typed toys increased across our chosen age groups, the pattern for girls was rather different.
Although girls of all ages preferred 'female-typed' toys, the youngest group showed the strongest preference.
And both boys and girls increasing preferred 'boy' toys as they approached their third birthday.
Among the very youngest infants the researchers found that all of the boys spent some time playing with the ball and that this accounted for half of the total play time. In contrast, the youngest girls played with the cooking pot for a similar proportion of the time (stock image)
Could Santa do the job if she was a woman? Kids share thoughtsProgress: 0%0:00PreviousPlaySkipMuteCurrent Time0:00/Duration Time1:33FullscreenNeed Text
Which raises questions about gender assumptions of what a 'boy' toy or 'girl' toy actually is.
So as well as finding sex differences in toy preferences, we also found sex differences in the developmental pathways of boys and girls.
We can only speculate that, at least in the location of our study, stereotypes for boys are more rigid than those for girls.
As in modern society, girls' play with 'male-typed' toys is often encouraged more than boys' play with toys related to a care-giving role.
But of course, some of the boys and girls in our study didn't stick to typical 'boy' 'girl' preferences at all, so it's probably best to keep the individual child in mind when choosing that present.
The big banks would like to say “thank you” for your money. No, not the money you keep in your checking and savings accounts. We’re talking about the money you send to the federal government in the form of taxes.
On Tuesday evening, the House of Representatives added a provision to a “must pass” spending bill that loosens some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial reforms, and guarantees that banks that need future taxpayer funded bailouts will get them. If that doesn’t sound outrageous enough to you, consider this: the legislation was largely written by Citigroup.
Mother Jones reports that the bill guts one provision of the Dodd-Frank reforms that the big banks hate; the so-called “push out rule.” That rule requires that banks that want to deal in derivatives and other risky financial instruments must do so by moving those transactions to non-bank affiliates that are not protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The move would make those non-bank entities less likely to receive government bailouts.
The original bill was passed by the House over a year ago. Democrats’ hands were not completely clean on it, either. Two Democrats sponsored the bill, and 70 Democrats voted for it in the House in 2013. The bill was considered dead after the Senate failed to act on it. But on Tuesday evening the Citigroup written language found its way into a bill that had to be passed to avoid a government shutdown.
The Citigroup written language has some Democrats crying “foul.”
The New York Times found in 2013 that almost all of the language of the original bill was written by Citigroup lobbyists. Mother Jones provides the following graphic, showing how closely one section of the bill mirrors the language written by Citigroup.
Citigroup wrote the bill that will give Citigroup a bailout when needed
Courtesy of Mother Jones
The language in the bill will primarily benefit the largest banks in the country: Citibank, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Bank Of America, and Goldman Sachs. Some Democratic leaders are outraged.
Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement on her web site.
Once more, Republicans are working to stack the deck for the special interests against everyone else. Buried in the more than 1,600 pages of the omnibus package Republicans posted in the dead of night are provisions to put hard-working taxpayers back on the hook for Wall Street’s riskiest behavior. This provision, allowing big banks to gamble with money insured by the FDIC, opens the door to another taxpayer-funded bailout of big banks – forcing middle class families to bear the burden of Wall Street’s mistakes.
According to The Huffington Post, Senator Elizabeth Warren said, “The House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful.”
Senator Richard Durbin echoed her concern. “[It’s] an awful invitation for another financial disaster. A number of us are very concerned,” he told reporters.
Republicans, and some Democrats, can’t wait to start dismantling the Dodd-Frank law. This bill is the first crack in the wall designed to protect the public from the excesses of Citigroup and the large banks. With Republicans taking control of all of congress in January, be prepared — the worst is almost certainly yet to come.
There may be a spiritual connection here that people do not see (there is a piece of history here, that has been lost to the ages that needs to be seen again, perhaps for a modern parallel). US and Europe has been under the control of Judaism which has moved minds of US people away from classical liberal (libertarian) roots envisioned by the founders of the US constitution. What where seeing here may be the rebirth of a classical Russian figure...
Holy Man Grigori Rasputin (January 10th/23rd 1869 – December 17th/30th, 1916)
Grigori Rasputin, a peasant born in Russia, faith healer and pilgrim, travelled and visited orthodox monasteries and holy places, coming back home for each sowing and harvesting season. During one of his trips in 1906 Rasputin was introduced to the Tsar’s family and became their close friend. He was a simple religious Russian man.
Since 1910 an organized campaign was started against Rasputin in press. He was accused of horse-stealing, belonging to the Khlysty sect, unrestricted sexual life and alcoholism. None of these accusations were proven upon investigation but defamation did not stop, a campaign arranged by freemasons to discredit the Tsar. Grigori Rasputin was hateful to the enemies of the Tsar. They targeted Grigori when their real aim was the Tsar’s family and the Monarchy itself. False accusations were made against Grigori Rasputin and his personality was fabricated.
All attacks, libel and lies targeted at Rasputin were in fact intended against the Tsar which stood for the Fatherland and Russian state. Having found the most sensitive and intimate subject in the life of the Tsar’s family, the enemies of the Tsar and Russia attacked it methodically and skillfully as they once did with John of Kronstadt who was a close friend of Alexander III.
Who hated Grigori and why? Who and what did he interfere with? What was he hated for?
Grigori Rasputin-Novuy was an extraordinary person and a holy man. Rasputin was orthodox and called for everyone to share his faith. He urged the faithful orthodox to“take communion as often as you can and go to church whether the priests are good or bad. Consider the priests good. They also have families and they are just human.” Also, “brother, beware of evil spirits. Sisters, think about the true and pure love. Sing psalms and religious songs. Evil demons are always looking for a chance to do their evil deeds. Let us not be afraid of evil demons, let us continue to praise God, love church and take communion more often.” After being shot and thrown into ice-cold water he had his fingers in a sign of the cross. The cross stands for victory over demons.
From the first meeting of the Tsar’s family with Rasputin (in October 1905) till his tragic death, the Tsar, Tsarina and their children loved Grigori and believed him to be a holy man. Once while in exile in Tobolsk the Tsar asked Doctor Derevenko to bring him secretly from the guard a little box holding as the Tsar said “the most valuable thing for them”. Putting his life at risk Dr. Derevenko granted the Tsar’s wish. When giving the box to the Tsar the Doctor asked (thinking it contained valuable jewels) about its content. “This is the most valuable for us – the letters from Grigori”, responded the Tsar.
Here is the last prophetic letter of the holy man Grigori Rasputin:
“I feel that I shall leave life before January 1st. I wish to make known to the Russian people, to Papa (the Tsar), to the Russian Mother (the Tsarina) and to the Children what they must understand. If I am killed by common assassins, and especially by my brothers the Russian peasants, you, the Tsar of Russia, will have nothing to fear for your children, they will reign for hundreds of years. But if I am murdered by boyars, nobles, and if they shed my blood, their hands will remain soiled with my blood for twenty-five years and they will leave Russia. Brothers will kill brothers, and they will kill each other and hate each other, and for twenty-five years there will be no peace in the country. The Tsar of the land of Russia, if you hear the sound of the bell which will tell you that Grigori has been killed, you must know this: if it was your relations who have wrought my death, then none of your children will remain alive for more than two years. And if they do, they will beg for death as they will see the defeat of Russia, see the Antichrist coming, plague, poverty, destroyed churches, and desecrated sanctuaries where everyone is dead. The Russian Tsar, you will be killed by the Russian people and the people will be cursed and will serve as the devil’s weapon killing each other everywhere. Three times for 25 years they will destroy the Russian people and the orthodox faith and the Russian land will die. I shall be killed. I am no longer among the living. Pray, pray, be strong, and think of your blessed family.”
In 1912, when Russia was ready to intervene in the Balkan conflict, Rasputin was begging the Tsar on his knees not to start military actions and, of course, he prayed to God to guide the Tsar’s heart. According to Count Witte, “he (Rasputin) revealed all the disastrous consequences of the European conflict and thus turned history around. The war was prevented”. The power of Rasputin’s prayers was so horrifying to the initiators of the war in which Russia had to be involved so that, according to Engels, “crowns would fall to the ground”, that these initiators decided to kill Grigori Rasputin upon their new attempt to start the world war on the same date and hour when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo which triggered World War I. Rasputin was wounded heavily and while he was unconscious and could not pray, the Tsar had to start a nation-wide mobilization in response to the declaration of war by Germany against Russia. The enemies of Russia realized the threat to their destructive, anti-Russian and anti-monarchy plans which Rasputin presented. Purishkevich said in the Duma representing everyone who hated the monarchical Russia about the main obstacle to overthrowing the Tsar: “While Rasputin is alive, we cannot win”.
Meanwhile Grigori Rasputin was just a humble religious man deeply convinced that his power rested in belief in God of those asking for prayers. Grigori found himself in Saint Petersburg in 1904 to ask for permission to build the Church of Protection of the Holy Virgin in his native village of Pokrovskoye. It was the time when the Tsarevich was just born and his parents realized that hourly prayers to God were needed to save the child’s life. Looking around for potential heirs to the Imperial throne in Russia, the Tsar could see no one with a pure and believing heart who could take over and rule Russia.
The little Aleksey Nikolayevich given to the Tsar’s family by prayers of Seraphim of Sarov was the only hope of the Tsar for the well-being of the country he deeply and truly loved. He was like a ray of sun, a kind, bright child and a true consolation to the Tsar’s family who was afraid to think of anything bad happening to him. He was given to the Tsar by prayers of a holy man and could be kept alive only by the prayers of another holy man. He suffered from hemophilia which was painful and dangerous but not fatal. The sons of Tsarevich Aleksey could be absolutely healthy. God sent to the Tsar’s family a holy man who could pray for their son.
Grigori Rasputin was introduced to the Tsar in October 1905. Grigori at the first meeting with the Tsar and Tsarina knew about his godsent purpose and spent all his remaining life serving the Tsar. He stopped his pilgrimage and stayed in Saint Petersburg gathering around him people devoted to the Tsar. Most importantly he was close by every time the Tsarevich needed him as his prayers for the child were heard and answered by God. This godly help to the Tsarevich was a sign for the Tsar that in the most difficult times of his czardom God sent him a spiritual mentor. According to Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, the Tsar and the Tsarina “saw in him a peasant whose true devotion made him a holy man”.
There are true facts supported by many witnesses when Rasputin saved Tsarevich Alexey’s life. In 1907 when the Tsarevich was three years old, he had a strong bleeding which started from his leg in the Tsarskoye Selo Park. Grigori was sent for, he prayed and the bleeding stopped. In October 1912 in Spala, the Tsar’s hunting area in Poland, Tsarevich Alexey Nikolayevich was almost hopeless after a serious injury and his doctors insisted on publishing bulletins on the Tsarevich’s health. The Tsarina however did not expect much help from the doctors. Instead she was hoping for the grace of God. At that time Rasputin was in his home village of Pokrovskoye. Anna Vyrubova sent a telegram to Rasputin following the Tsarina’s request. A response from Rasputin arrived promptly: “God saw your tears. Do not worry. Your Son will live”. An hour after the telegram was received, the Tsarevich’s condition improved drastically. He was no longer in danger.
In 1915 when the Tsar followed the troops, he took Alexey Nikolayevich with him. On the way his nose started bleeding. The train turned back as the Tsarevich was bleeding to death. He was in his room, with “his small pale face and bloodstained cotton in his nostrils”. Grigori was sent for. “He arrived at the palace and went to the Tsarevich’s room accompanied by his parents. According to them he came up to the Tsarevich’s bed, made the sign of the cross upon him and said to his parents that it was not serious and they had nothing to worry about. Then he turned away and left. The bleeding stopped… The doctors could not understand how that happened”
Grigori regularly healed people with the help of God.
The prayers for the Tsarevich and his health were just a small part of what Rasputin did for his Tsar. He often saw the sophisticated lies and evil schemes plotted behind the Tsar’s back. He warned the Tsar against many decisions potentially dangerous for the country. He was against convening the last Duma, asked not to publish the seditious speeches pronounced at the Duma meetings. Just before the February Revolution he insisted on bringing food supplies to Petrograd – bread and butter from Siberia. He even thought of pre-packaging flour and sugar to avoid lines which gave a start to disturbances in the artificially created bread crisis and which were skillfully transformed into a “revolution”. These are just some of Rasputin’s prophesies for the war and pre-revolutionary Russia in 1914-1917. Grigori was able to see people’s true nature and thus knew the souls and true intentions of the people close to the Tsar. He realized that Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich being the Commander in Chief would not only bring failure to the army but also presented danger to the monarchy. Rasputin insisted that the Tsar should himself be the Commander in Chief and success of the Russian army followed immediately.
Going though all the sufferings for the Christ the Tsar’s family recalled the prophecies made by Rasputin and realizing that these trials were sent by God were getting ready for their last days. They remembered that Grigori had predicted that they would visit his native village when they were on a ship going through the Pokrovskoye village to Tobolsk. Later when the Tsar, Tsarina and Grand Duchess Mariya Nikolaevna were riding through Pokrovskoye, they stopped at the house of their holy man. Grigori predicted that long ago and told about that not only to the Tsarina but to many others as well, including Yuliya Den: “They must come. Of their own will or not they will come to Tobolsk. Before they die, they will see my native village” (10, p.96).
Rasputin’s murder was arranged by freemasons under the leadership of V.A. Maklakov to shatter the spirits of the Tsar and the Tsarina. Prior to the revolution in December 1916 the holy man was lured to the house of freemason Felix Yusupov and brutally murdered. After the power was seized by the Provisional Government consisting primarily of freemasons, Rasputin’s body was desecrated and then burnt by the order of A.F. Kerensky.
Not only Grigori Rasputin’s life was belied, distorted and fabricated but the truth about his death was concealed too. The dreadful murder was purposefully presented wrong with the only purpose of disguising the ritual nature of this crime.
Both the Tsar and any Christian person familiar with the Judaic rituals could suggest that the murder was ritual on the basis of the circumstances of the crime – tortures, tied arms and legs, excessive bleeding and then immediate death and drowning of the body (not burying or hiding) done by Christian separatists who were later claimed as actual murderers.
The murder on December 17th, 1916 was a prototype to the murder in Yekaterinburg on July 17th, 1918. “Oh this horrible 17th”, wrote the Tsarina to her relatives from exile. Indeed the Manifesto was published on October 17th, 1907. Starets Grigori was tortured and murdered on December 17th, 1916. On July 17th Tsar Nicholas II and his Family were murdered. Gunshots and tortures, cuts and bruises on the children’s bodies, drowning the bodies in the mine water and later removal of the bodies and their burning on monstrous ritual fires… All that was accompanied by a periphrasis from Heine in German: “Belsatzar ward in selbiger Nacht von seinen Knechten umgebracht” (“This night the White Tsar was murdered by his people”). Next to it there was a cabbalistic inscription: “Here upon the order of the secret powers the Tsar was sacrificed for the destruction of the state. All nations are informed thereof”.
Everything the Tsar’s family suffered was first suffered by their Holy Man. He was tortured with knives and “spurs” and then killed thrice. His body was drowned in the river, then poured with gasoline and burnt. Two inscriptions were made confirming the ritual character of the murder one of which was in German. There were no graves of either Grigori or the Tsar’s family. To prove it let us quote the words of the Tsar and Tsarina-Martyrs from their miraculous post-mortem appearances: The Tsarina-Martyr: “We have been dissolved in the Russian land, do not look for us…”The Tsar-Martyr: Everyone must know that! What they did to us is even hard to describe! They poured our ashes in their glasses…and drank with pleasure and gloated that they had destroyed Us in such a way! Yes, that’s what they did to us. I do not want to scare you, time will come and the truth will be revealed. When you grow up, tell everyone not to look for our bodies. There aren’t any![ ... ] They burnt us into ashes and drank!.. And let them not look for our hallows”
The tortures and murder of Grigori Rasputin served the Jews and their supporters in many ways. By abusing the name of the Tsar’s friend they abused the Tsar himself. People were shocked at how such a bad person as Rasputin could be the friend of the Tsar and Tsarina and stopped believing in the monarchy itself. At the same time discrediting Grigori by the Jews was supposed to make the Tsar believe the false accusations and waive him from the court. When the attempts at Grigori’s spiritual murder failed, they killed him physically for without this murder the Judaic powers would not have been able to destroy the Russian Tsar.
They had a goal of a larger scale than insulting the Tsar’s family. That was a victory not only over Russia… but the way to the Apocalypse became possible only after elimination of the Withholding powers – by murdering the Russian Tsar, Tsarevich and the entire family of the Tsar. There was “no one”, according to Theophan the Recluse, “who could set a powerful veto to all this lawlessness”.
For further details and references, we strongly recommend the original source of the above excerpts: Omolenko.com
Usama Bin Laden died in 2001. He was the victim of a degenerative disease known as Marfan Syndrome. It is a particularly unpleasant way to die. How do we know he died of Marfan's? Well, let's take a look at some of the evidence.
All of us should remember the article spread far and wide by the Guardian: Guardian.co.uk
Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.
The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.
Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA.
The CIA chief was seen in the lift, on his way to see Bin Laden, and later, it is alleged, boasted to friends about his contact. He was recalled to Washington soon afterwards.
Of course the hospital denied OBL was ever there. I mean, would you?
Well then, who is saying that UBL is dead then?
Former CIA officer and hugely respected intelligence & foreign policy expert Robert Baer, who in 2008 when asked about Bin Laden by a radio host responded, “Of course he is dead.”
Fox News reported on December 26, 2001 that;
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.
Read more: Foxnews.com
- On January 18, 2002, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf announced: “I think now, frankly, he is dead.”
- On July 17, 2002, the then-head of counterterrorism at the FBI, Dale Watson, told a conference of law enforcement officials that “I personally think he [Bin Laden] is probably not with us anymore.”
- In October 2002, Afghan President Hamid Karzai told CNN that “I would come to believe that [Bin Laden] probably is dead.
- In 2003, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Fox News Channel analyst Morton Kondracke she suspected Bush knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and was waiting for the most politically expedient moment to announce his capture.
- In November 2005, Senator Harry Reid revealed that he was told Osama may have died in the Pakistani earthquake of October that year.
- In February 2007, Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s Religious Studies program, stated that the purported video and audio tapes that were being released of Bin Laden were fake and that he was probably dead.
- On November 2, 2007, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto told Al-Jazeera’s David Frost that Omar Sheikh had killed Osama Bin Laden.
- In March 2009, former US foreign intelligence officer and professor of international relations at Boston University Angelo Codevilla stated: “All the evidence suggests Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama Bin Laden.”
- In May 2009, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari confirmed that his “counterparts in the American intelligence agencies” hadn’t heard anything from Bin Laden in seven years and confirmed “I don’t think he’s alive.”
AP Article, 4/26/02, by ROBERT BURNS
"We're hunting him down," he said. "We're tracking him down. He's hiding. We haven't heard hide nor hair of him for about, oh, since December, in terms of anything hard." Rumsfeld said.
Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper:
al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633
News of Bin Laden's Death
and Funeral 10 days ago
A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa'da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora 10 days ago. He mentioned that 30 of al-Qa'da fighters attended the burial as well as members of his family and some friends from the Taleban. In the farewell ceremony to his final rest guns were fired in the air. The official stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the burial location of bin Laden because according to the Wahhabi tradition no mark is left by the grave. He stressed that it is unlikely that the American forces would ever uncover any traces of bin Laden.
Gary North quotes himself from one of his prior articles on the subject:
The story of bin Laden’s hospital stay was reported last week in Le Figaro. I cannot imagine a hotter story, yet U.S. newspapers are pretending that it’s not newsworthy — “not worth pursuing.” An Israeli Website has translated the full article from Le Figaro (Oct. 31). This should have been front-page news in every newspaper in America, the lead story on every network. But it doesn’t fit the official government version. The people therefore don’t have a right to know. Or, as we might put it, “All the news that fits.”
Arriving from the airport of Quetta, Pakistan, Osama bin laden was transferred upon arrival at Dubai airport. Accompanied by his personal doctor and faithful lieutenant, the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahari (though on this latter, the testimony of the eyewitness was not formal), as well as by four body guards and an Algerian nurse, bin Laden was admitted to the American Hospital, a building of glass and marble situated between al-Garhoud Bridge and al-Maktoum bridge.
Each story of the hospital has two VIP suites and around 15 rooms. The millionaire Saudi was admitted to the renowned department of urology headed by Dr. Terry Callaway, an expert on kidney stones and male infertility. In the course of several telephone calls, Callaway did not wish to respond to our questions.
In March 2000 the weekly journal, Asia Week, published in Hong Kong, raised questions about bin Laden’s health, stating that he suffered from a serious physical problem and more precisely that he was in danger due to a kidney infection that had spread to the liver and required the care of a specialist. According to legitimate sources, bin Laden had delivered to a post in Kandahar a mobile dialysis machine sometime in the first part of 2000. According to our sources, “this trip for reasons of Bin Laden’s health” was not the first. Between 1996 and 1998, Osama bin Laden went to Dubai several times for health purposes. . . .
Throughout his stay in the hospital, Osama bin Laden received visits from many family members and Saudi Arabian and emirate personalities of status. During this time, the local representative of the CIA was seen by many people taking the elevator and going to bin Laden’s room. . . .
If the funeral took place 10 days before this article was published in al-Wafd and The Observer of Pakistan, this would put the death of Osama bin-Laden around the 16th or 17th of December 2001. Israeli intelligence officials also told reporters in October 2002 that they and United States officials believe that Osama bin-Laden had been killed in December 2001.
I followed Clark’s reference to the Israeli news report and found that the article is still online. The article — Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen — claims that both Israeli and U.S. intelligence were aware that Osama bin Laden had died. From the article:
The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported.
This Pennington Press article quotes Steve R. Pieczenik at length. It is well worth reading. Here’s one of the most relevant excerpts from the article:
Pieczenik said that Osama Bin Laden died in 2001, “Not because special forces had killed him, but because as a physician I had known that the CIA physicians had treated him and it was on the intelligence roster that he had marfan syndrome,” adding that the US government knew Bin Laden was dead before they invaded Afghanistan.
Marfan syndrome is a degenerative genetic disease for which there is no permanent cure. The illness severely shortens the life span of the sufferer.
“He died of marfan syndrome, Bush junior knew about it, the intelligence community knew about it,” said Pieczenik, noting how CIA physicians had visited Bin Laden in July 2001 at the American Hospital in Dubai.
“He was already very sick from marfan syndrome and he was already dying, so nobody had to kill him,” added Pieczenik, stating that Bin Laden died shortly after 9/11 in his Tora Bora cave complex.
This gives even more credence to the theory that Osama bin Laden died more than 9 years ago in the mountains of Afghanistan. If this is indeed true (and I believe it is), then why has the U.S. claimed for nearly 10 years that Osama is still alive? And why has the U.S. all of a sudden “found” Osama, killed him, and sunk his body to the bottom of the ocean just 12 hours after his death?
Even the US Govt. says the [December 27, 2001 video] was dismissed by the Bush administration ... as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead. "He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death," said one White House aide. Telegraph
Andy Rooney wrote an op-ed piece on November 21, 2002, titled “Andy believes Osama is dead.” In it, he makes an astute observation:
I don’t like being suspicious of my own government, but this is the most secretive government the United States has ever had. You have to consider what reasons our leaders might have for perpetuating the idea that bin Laden is alive. I suppose our “war on terror” would lose some of its urgency if the main object of our search were proved to be dead. That would be one reason for our government to continue saying bin Laden is alive.
I personally believe it was not only expedient to convince Americans that Osama bin Laden was still alive — it was also strategic. In fact, a February 11, 2002, article hints at this very purpose:
George Friedman, chairman of a global intelligence forecast service, STRATFOR, blamed U.S. military and political strategy for casting Bin Laden as “a critical element in psychological warfare” in the U.S. and abroad.
In other words, just as the fictional character of Emmanuel Goldstein was used to unite the citizens of Oceania against a common enemy, so Osama bin Laden has been used for military and political purposes inside the U.S.
Other Sources used for this article included:
Shouldn't this finally pentetrate even the brain dead that UBL was as real as Achmed the Dead Terrorist of Jeff Dunham fame.
No blogs were found matching the criteria specified. We suggest you try the blog list with no filter applied, to browse all available. Join now to share your own content, we welcome creators and consumers alike and look forward to your comments.