MID-EAST REALITIES - Washington - January 15, 2003:
Our world is at a fateful moment once again. And those who lead the world's 'only superpower' are dangerous persons, unfit for the role, and in urgent need of being constrained and contained. From the White House to the Pentagon to Capitol Hill, from the CIA to NSA to the Department of Justice, America has badly lost its way and now others in the world must come forward to check and to stop this superpower which as Anatol Lieven warned in the pages of the London Review of Books a few months ago has become some a danger to itself and to the whole world. Thus how true and frigtening John le Carré's current analysis. How important and timely le Carré's warnings. The demonstration this Saturday in Washington is not organized by the rigth people in the right way -- but even so come if you can even though the American juggernaunt -- urged on by the Israelis and their lobbyist forces as we have pointed out in detail many times in the past -- will now be very very hard to stop. Indeed, those in charge of Saturday's demonstration have already specifically foresworn use of the one major grassroots 'weapon' which could have a chance at blocking the coming orgy of war and death, peaceful legal civil disobedience in an ongoing and sustained manner. They are profoundly wrong in having done so; others should now urgently come forward to lead the way

by John le Carré

The Times, UK - January 15, 2003: America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War.

The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

The imminent war was planned years before bin Laden struck, but it was he who made it possible. Without bin Laden, the Bush junta would still be trying to explain such tricky matters as how it came to be elected in the first place; Enron; its shameless favouring of the already-too-rich; its reckless disregard for the world's poor, the ecology and a raft of unilaterally abrogated international treaties. They might also have to be telling us why they support Israel in its continuing disregard for UN resolutions.

But bin Laden conveniently swept all that under the carpet. The Bushies are riding high. Now 88 per cent of Americans want the war, we are told. The US defence budget has been raised by another $60 billion to around $360 billion. A splendid new generation of nuclear weapons is in the pipeline, so we can all breathe easy. Quite what war 88 per cent of Americans think they are supporting is a lot less clear. A war for how long, please? At what cost in American lives? At what cost to the American taxpayer's pocket? At what cost because most of those 88 per cent are thoroughly decent and humane people in Iraqi lives?

How Bush and his junta succeeded in deflecting America's anger from bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the great public relations conjuring tricks of history. But they swung it. A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. The carefully orchestrated neurosis should carry Bush and his fellow conspirators nicely into the next election.

Those who are not with Mr Bush are against him. Worse, they are with the enemy. Which is odd, because I'm dead against Bush, but I would love to see Saddam's downfall just not on Bush's terms and not by his methods. And not under the banner of such outrageous hypocrisy.

The religious cant that will send American troops into battle is perhaps the most sickening aspect of this surreal war-to-be. Bush has an arm-lock on God. And God has very particular political opinions. God appointed America to save the world in any way that suits America. God appointed Israel to be the nexus of America's Middle Eastern policy, and anyone who wants to mess with that idea is a) anti-Semitic, b) anti-American, c) with the enemy, and d) a terrorist.

God also has pretty scary connections. In America, where all men are equal in His sight, if not in one another's, the Bush family numbers one President, one ex-President, one ex-head of the CIA, the Governor of Florida and the ex-Governor of Texas.

Care for a few pointers? George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on. But none of these trifling associations affects the integrity of God's work.

In 1993, while ex-President George Bush was visiting the ever-democratic Kingdom of Kuwait to receive thanks for liberating them, somebody tried to kill him. The CIA believes that somebody was Saddam. Hence Bush Jr's cry: "That man tried to kill my Daddy." But it's still not personal, this war. It's still necessary. It's still God's work. IIt's still about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed Iraqi people.

To be a member of the team you must also believe in Absolute Good and Absolute Evil, and Bush, with a lot of help from his friends, family and God, is there to tell us which is which. What Bush won't tell us is the truth about why we're going to war. What is at stake is not an Axis of Evil but oil, money and people's lives. Saddam's misfortune is to sit on the second biggest oilfield in the world. Bush wants it, and who helps him get it will receive a piece of the cake. And who doesn't, won't.

If Saddam didn't have the oil, he could torture his citizens to his heart's content. Other leaders do it every day. think Saudi Arabia, think Pakistan, think Turkey, think Syria, think Egypt.

Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

The most charitable interpretation of Tony Blair's part in all this is that he believed that, by riding the tiger, he could steer it. He can't. Instead, he gave it a phoney legitimacy, and a smooth voice. Now I fear, the same tiger has him penned into a corner, and he can't get out.

It is utterly laughable that, at a time when Blair has talked himself against the ropes, neither of Britain's opposition leaders can lay a glove on him. But that's Britain's tragedy, as it is America's: as our Governments spin, lie and lose their credibility, the electorate simply shrugs and looks the other way. Blair's best chance of personal survival must be that, at the eleventh hour, world protest and an improbably emboldened UN will force Bush to put his gun back in his holster unfired. But what happens when the world's greatest cowboy rides back into town without a tyrant's head to wave at the boys?

Blair's worst chance is that, with or without the UN, he will drag us into a war that, if the will to negotiate energetically had ever been there, could have been avoided; a war that has been no more democratically debated in Britain than it has in America or at the UN. By doing so, Blair will have set back our relations with Europe and the Middle East for decades to come. He will have helped to provoke unforeseeable retaliation, great domestic unrest, and regional chaos in the Middle East. Welcome to the party of the ethical foreign policy.

There is a middle way, but it's a tough one: Bush dives in without UN approval and Blair stays on the bank. Goodbye to the special relationship.

I cringe when I hear my Prime Minister lend his head prefect's sophistries to this colonialist adventure. His very real anxieties about terror are shared by all sane men. What he can't explain is how he reconciles a global assault on al-Qaeda with a territorial assault on Iraq. We are in this war, if it takes place, to secure the fig leaf of our special relationship, to grab our share of the oil pot, and because, after all the public hand-holding in Washington and Camp David, Blair has to show up at the altar.


Are WE the real guinea-pigs?
by J. Citizen of Blatant Propaganda for the Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research

According to the United States' Food and Drug Administration,1.5 million Americans were hospitalised in 1978 alone, as a consequence of pharmaceutical drugs administered to "cure" them. It was also found that some 30% of all hospitalised people suffered further damage from the therapy prescribed them.1 In the 1990s, studies show that 180,000 medically-induced deaths occur each year in the USA.2 Most of these are prescription drug related. These astronomical figures are in spite of the fact that a large number of pharmaceutical drug damages go unreported. Since 1961, the total number of "safety-tested" medical preparations marketed worldwide has risen to over 205,000. Approximately 15,000 new preparations are marketed each year, while some 12,000 are withdrawn.3 The United States has the greatest annual sickness-care expenditure of any nation; $912 billion in 1993 alone.4 If money and medical treatment equals health then one would expect the United States to be the healthiest of nations. However, it only ranks 16th in the world in female life expectancy, 17th in the world in male life expectancy and only 21st in the world in infant mortality(5). Of course, a percentage of drug damages are due to the incorrect administration of drugs by physicians and patients. But how are harmful pharmaceutical drugs allowed onto the market in the first place, and why do we have so much faith in them? Pharmaceutical transnationals defy the intent of laws regulating safety of drugs by bribery, false advertising, unsafe manufacturing processes, smuggling and international law evasion strategies. But most of all they make dangerous drugs appear safe through the use of fraudulent and flexible 'safety-tests', the subject of this article...

Fraud in Clinical Trials - Human Tests.
Drug companies can easily arrange appropriate clinical trials by paying a researcher to produce the desired results that will assist the intended application of the drug. The incentive for researchers to fabricate data is enormous. As much as $1000 per subject is paid by American companies which enables some researchers to earn up to $1 million a year from drug research.6 And they know all too well that if they don't produce the desired data, the loss of future work is inevitable. Unfortunately, because of secrecy, most fraud in clinical trials is unlikely to be detected. However, cases of data-fabrication in clinical trials have been uncovered where, for example, "patients who died while on the trial were not reported to the sponsor....Dead people were listed as subjects of testing... People reported as subjects of testing were not in the hospital at the time of tests..." and where "Patient consent forms bore dates indicating they were signed by the subjects after the subjects had died."7 Even if data from clinical trials is not falsified, it is often of little worth, because they are not performed appropriately. Trials involve relatively small numbers of people and the subjects taking part usually do not represent those who will use the drug after its approval; so many harmful effects of a new drug appear only when it has been marketed.

Fraud in Vivisection - Animal Tests.
This problem of inappropriate and flexible testing of drugs and chemicals is even more pronounced with the use of so-called animal 'models'; a practice termed vivisection. For instance, the fact that the animal is relatively healthy before the experiment means that disease and or trauma has to be induced by violent and artificial means. This bears no relation to the spontaneous ways in which humans develop illness, often through a faulty lifestyle and diet. For example, consider the case of osteoarthritis, a human degenerative disease resulting in grotesque and painful deformities of the joints. How do researchers attempt to mimic human lameness in dogs, cats, sheep and pigs? Joints are beaten with hammer blows, injected with irritating liquids, subjected to ionising radiation and/or dislocated. It is obvious that the resulting fractures, haemorrhages, thromboses, contusions and inflammation bear no relation to human osteoarthritis, "which is a local manifestation of a generalised illness of the collagen."8 Drugs tested on such artificially diseased non-human animals cannot possibly yield results relevant to a spontaneous, naturally occurring human disease. Moreover, there is no true correlation between different species. For example, arsenic kills humans but is harmless to guinea-pigs, chickens and monkeys; Digitalis which is used to lower blood pressure in humans dangerously raises the blood pressure of dogs; Penicillin kills guinea-pigs; Chloramphenicol damages the blood-producing bone marrow in humans, but in no other animal: Many common laboratory animals such as dogs, cats, rats, hamsters and mice, do not require dietary intake of vitamin C. This is because their bodies produce it of their own accord. However, if you deprive humans, guinea-pigs and some primates of dietary vitamin C they will die of scurvy. There are enough of these species differences to fill a book.9 In the words of former animal researcher Professor Pietro Croce, "No substance is toxic in itself, but only according to the species."(10) Not only are there differences between species, but even individuals of the same species react differently to a substance. For example, research carried out at the University of Bremen, published in a paper titled "Problems of activity threshold in pharmacology and toxicology" found:

1. In ionising radiation -- young animals react differently from older ones. In reactions to Tranquillisers -- again, young and old animals react differently.

2. In the common method of testing pharmaceuticals and chemicals, the Lethal Dose 50% test, it was found that in the experiments carried out in the evening almost all the rats died: in those carried out in the morning all of them survived. In the tests carried out in winter, survival rates were doubled in contrast to those carried out in summer. In tests carried out on mice overcrowded together in cages, nearly all of them died, while those carried out on mice in normal conditions, all the mice survived.

The authors of this research, themselves vivisectors, concluded:
"If such trifling environmental conditions bring about such widely differing and unforeseeable results, this means that animal experimentation cannot be relied upon in assessing a chemical substance and it is all the more absurd to extrapolate to problems of human health results which are intrinsically wrong."(11) Numerous medical historians such as Hans Ruesch and Dr. Robert Sharpe, have documented that the true medical progress of the past was achieved through scientific study of the real world of natural human disease, and not from the artificial world of the experimental animal laboratory.(12)

How Many Pharmaceutical Drugs Do We Need?
Why do drug companies rely on such unreliable and dubious methods for testing drugs? The answer is simple. If drugs were tested properly using true scientific methods, such as in vitro cultures of human cells and properly carried out human clinical trials, the vast majority of them would not be approved for marketing because their harmfulness and ineffectiveness would be all too apparent. For instance, in 1981 the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) in collaboration with the World Health Organisation (WHO), published a list of a mere 26 drugs, from the 205,000 marketed drugs, that were considered "indispensable", with 9 being more indispensable than the others.13 Other medical commissions in Chile 1972, and Sri Lanka 1978, came to similar findings, that there are not more than a few dozen drugs worth keeping. However, both existing governments were ousted shortly there-after by US backed forces. They were replaced with administrations open to American trade and the products of the chemical-pharmaceutical industry.14 This should cause anyone who thinks that we need more drugs to reconsider their opinion. It is plain to see that inconsequential and ambiguous methods of drug-testing are essential to protect the astronomical profits of the pharmaceutical industry.

Drug Companies Make These Admissions!
If you have difficulty accepting this explanation then consider the following statement from Eli Lilly's August 1993 Prozac 20 Consumer Product Information pamphlet: "There can be no such thing as absolute safety with prescription medicines. Individual patients sometimes react differently to the same dose of the same medicine and it is possible that some unwanted side effects will not be known until a medicine has been widely prescribed for a number of years." If they admit that even individuals of the same species react differently to an identical product, then why test on other species? Dr Herbert Gundersheimer, one of many doctors against vivisection, explains: "Results from animal tests are not transferable between species and therefore cannot guarantee product safety for humans...In reality these tests do not provide protection for consumers from unsafe products, but rather are used to protect corporations from legal liability."15 When people are damaged by unsafe products (such as pharmaceutical drugs, industrial and household chemicals, cosmetics ...etc.) and attempt to take legal action, manufacturers can claim to have adhered to "safety" tests and are thus absolved of having consciously marketed a harmful product .

Thalidomide: A Case Example
This is what happened in the case of Thalidomide, a drug which after years of extensive animal tests was marketed as a perfectly safe tranquilliser for pregnant mothers. The end result: more than 10,000 grossly deformed babies. During the lengthy trial of the manufacturers in 1970, numerous court witnesses, all animal experimenters, stated under oath that the results of animal experiments are never valid for human beings.16
One of these experts was the Nobel Prize winner Ernst Boris Chain who co-discovered the anti-bacterial effects of penicillin. According to the court records on 2 February 1970 he stated: "No animal experiment with a medicament, even if it is tested on several animal species, including primates, under all conceivable conditions, can give any guarantee that the medicament tested in this way will behave the same in humans: because in many respects the human is not the same as the animal."(17) Because they had performed the required animal safety-tests, and because these did not show evidence of any danger, the manufacturers of Thalidomide were found not guilty by the court of consciously marketing a harmful drug.

Figure 1. Children of Thalidomide with artificial limbs.
This is the real value of animal experiments. Firstly, they can be manipulated, whether consciously or unconsciously, to produce results favourable to a financial backer. Secondly, they serve as a legal alibi for corporations when their products kill and injure people. It is worthy of note that Professor S.T.Aygun, a virologist at the University of Ankara, who uses only the so-called 'alternative' non-animal research methods, discovered the danger of Thalidomide to humans and Turkey was spared the tragedy.(18)

Birth Defects Skyrocket
The incredible reaction to the Thalidomide tragedy by the pharmaceutical lobby was that it was a 'rare exception' and that it 'emphasises a need for more rigorous animal testing, not less.' This explanation was accepted by most people. So animal testing increased, along with the output of 'safety-tested' drugs. The consequences of this? In the 1950s in the Federal Republic of Germany, 3 out of every 100,000 babies were born malformed. By the 1980s, 500 out of every 100,000 were born malformed.19 This is more than a 100-fold increase. In the United States birth defects have increased more than 350% in the last 25 years. In the late 1950s, 70,000 American babies were born with birth defects every year. In the 1980s this toll reached 250,000 a year.(20) The reason for this increase in human birth defects is known. A survey by doctors in West Germany revealed that 61% of malformations in new-born children and 88% of all stillbirths are attributable to the damage caused by drugs taken by the mother during pregnancy.21 Remember, all these drugs were found to be "safe" through extensive animal testing! Why do people believe so firmly in vivisection? The answer to this lies in their education.

Drug Lobby Influence on Education & The Media
With many of the world's major drug companies under its control, the Rockefeller organisation has, since the early part of this century, been the largest single private source of funding for medical science and education in the United States and Britain. It is a major contributor of funding in many other countries. The aim of this lavish funding for our education is to produce a curriculum designed to indoctrinate students with beliefs favourable to the profits of the pharmaceutical-chemical industry. Only colleges and medical facilities that advocate the massive consumption of chemical drugs, "safety-tested" on animals, as the secret to health, are recipients of drug company finance. Drug companies also exercise a dictatorial influence over the mass-media, through ownership and advertising revenue, as well as upon party politicians through 'donations'. Meanwhile, doctors who heal by inexpensive natural means, thereby threatening pharmaceutical profits, are decried as quacks, driven out of the country or into jail.(22) Perhaps the most revealing point, however, is that the founder of the Rockefeller dynasty, John D Rockefeller, lived in excellent health to the age of 98 as did his son John D Jr., who died aged 86. What was their secret to a long healthy life? Both attributed this to a frugal diet of natural food, the advice of a homeopathic doctor only, and the complete avoidance of synthetic drugs! (23) In summary, the most powerful corporations in the world do not want us to know the truth about pharmaceutical drugs and drug-testing even if our lives depend on it. And of course, they do. As the drug companies acknowledge, it means that every time we take a drug or are exposed to chemicals in our food and environment, we are the real guinea-pigs.

Copyright EYE 1994-96 for the: CAMPAIGN AGAINST FRAUDULENT MEDICAL RESEARCH (CAFMR), PO Box 234 Lawson 2783 NSW Australia. Information kit $18 Australian. Visit for extensive free information. For similar information in the USA on the scientific fraud of animal research & subsequent damage to human health, see: Nature of Wellness

(1) Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress-the Great Medical Fraud, CIVIS, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1992, p.12.
(2) Lucian Leape, "Error in medicine", Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 1994, vol. 272, nr 23, p. 1851.
(3) Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress, op. cit., 1992, p.12.
(4) Arthur Baker, Awakening Our Self-Healing Body-A Solution to the Health Care Crisis, Self Health Care Sytems, LA, California, 1994, p. 5.
(5) ibid., p.9.
(6) John Braithwaite, Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1984, p.105.
(7) ibid., pp.51-52.
(8) Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science-a Choice to Make, CIVIS, Switzerland, 1991a, p.37.
(9) ibid, p.22-23.
(10) Piedro Croce, "That's Why I am Against Vivisection", CIVIS Foundation Report, Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, 1991b, nr 7, p.1.
(11) Croce, op. cit., 1991a, p.19.
(12) Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, CIVITAS Publications, Hartsdale NY, 1991, pp. 147-287; Robert Sharpe,The Cruel Deception, Thorsons Publishing Group, Wellingborough, U.K.1988.
(13) Hans Ruesch, Naked Empress, op. cit.,1992, p.191.
(14) ibid., p.92-96,191. 15--Herbert Gundersheimer, 1988, in 1000 Doctors Against Vivisection (and Many More), Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS, Switzerland, 1989, p.29.
(16) Hans Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, op. cit., 1991, pp. 359-367.
(17) Werner Hartinger in CIVIS International Foundation Report, Hans Ruesch (Ed.), CIVIS Massagno, Switzerland, 1991, nr 11, p.3.
(18) Ruesch, Slaughter of the Innocent, op. cit., 1991, p. 367.
(19) ibid., pp-365-366.
(20) Javier Burgos, Hidden Crimes (Film), SUPRESS, Pasadena, California, 1986.
(21) Croce, op. cit., 1991a, p.52.
(22) Ruesch, Naked Empress, op. cit., 1992, p.97-119. 23--ibid., p.115-116.


The Deadly Dangers of the Psychiatric Drugs Prozac & Ritalin
Prozac and Ritalin are hailed as 'wonder-drugs'. However, as far back as September 1993, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration had received 28, 623 reports of adverse reactions to Prozac; more than for any other product in the last 24 years!

A September 1989 article in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, estimated that between 10%-25% of persons on Prozac experience 'akathisia', a drug-induced insanity which includes hallucinations, aggression, self-destructive outbursts, suicide, hostility and rage. Add to this the reports of 1,885 attempted suicides and 1,734 deaths (1,089 by suicide), and the real 'wonder' of Prozac emerges.

With statistics such as the above, it is amazing that the medical world would even consider the continued prescription of Prozac as treatment for depression. It becomes less amazing when one looks at the profit that the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly has made on the sale of Prozac. In 1990 alone, Eli Lilly showed a profit of £230 million on the sale of Prozac. With such huge profits involved, it is easy to see how strongly one of the world's largest pharmaceutical giants might push the continued use of a drug like Prozac to physicians and the media.

In the case of Ritalin, a drug widely prescribed to children with Attention Deficit Disorder, the 'bible' of the psychiatric profession, the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual, 3rd Edition, Revised (1987), states "suicide is the major complication" of Methylphenidate (Ritalin) withdrawal (1987: 136, 175). Furthermore, the Australian Drug Guide (1991) , a doctors manual, states the "habit forming potential" of Ritalin as "high". In other words, it is addictive, creating long-term patients (and profits).

Even Eli Lilly's August 1993 Prozac 20 Consumer Product Information pamphlet, casts doubt about the safety of these drugs: "There can be no such thing as absolute safety with prescription medicines. Individual patients sometimes react differently to the same dose of the same medicine and it is possible that some unwanted side effects will not be known until a medicine has been widely prescribed for a number of years." In other words, the drug companies themselves acknowledge that the real guinea-pigs are the people who take a drug after it has been marketed.

Of course there are people who consider these drugs have helped them-but do they know the real risks and have they been informed of alternative treatments? In particular it is of concern how readily these drugs are prescribed and taken to overcome mental distress clearly of social origin. For instance, consider a person who is prescribed Prozac for stress caused by workplace harassment. The cause of their mental distress was an unpleasant social situation. A rational and effective solution would involve fixing this social situation. However, that solution requires genuine effort and concern. It is much easier for a society to prescribe a drug which blankets symptoms and deadens an individual's senses, than to accept responsibility and deal with the real underlying issues.

For a 40-odd page information-kit about the dangers of Prozac & Ritalin and of possible natural alternatives to them send $6 (Aus.) to: EYE PO Box 1327 Woden A.C.T. 2606 Australia. (please specify that you want the Prozac/Ritalin kit)


Doctors Against Vivisection
The following quotes (2 pages) are taken from the book, 1000 Doctors (& many more) Against Vivisection, (Ed. Hans Ruesch), CIVIS, 1989. 288 pages. Available from CAMPAIGN AGAINST FRAUDULENT MEDICAL RESEARCH (CAFMR) PO Box 234 Lawson NSW 2783 Australia, $21:50. and from Doctors & Lawyers for Responsible Medicine (DLRM). -104b Weston Park, London N8 9PP, UK (ph: (0181) 340-9813, fax (0181) 342 9878 to request pricelist).

"The reason why I am against animal research is because it doesn't work, it has no scientific value and every good scientist knows that." Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.,1986, Head of the Liscensing Board for the State of Illinois, paediatrician & gynaecologist for 30 years, medical columnist & best-selling author, recipient of numerous awards for excellence in medicine.

"Since there is no way to defend the use of animal model systems in plain English or with scientific facts, they resort to double-talk in technical jargon...The virtue of animal model systems to those in hot pursuit of the federal dollar is that they can be used to prove anything--no matter how foolish, or false, or dangerous this might be. There is such a wide variation in the results of animal model systems that there is always some system which will "prove" a point....The moral is that animal model systems not only kill animals, they also kill humans. There is no good factual evidence to show that the use of animals in cancer research has led to the prevention or cure of a single human cancer." Dr. D.J. Bross, Ph.D., 1982, former director of the largest cancer research institute in the world, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, then Director of Biostatics, Roswell Memorial Institute, Bufallo, NY.

"Practically all animal experiments are untenable on a statistical scientific basis, for they possess no scientific validity or reliability. They merely perform an alibi for pharmaceutical companies, who hope to protect themselves thereby." Herbert Stiller, M.D. & Margot Stiller M.D., 1976.

"Like every member of my profession, I was brought up in the belief that almost every important fact in physiology had been obtained by vivisection and that many of our most valued means of saving life and diminishing suffering had resulted from experiments on the lower animals. I now know that nothing of the sort is true concerning the art of surgery: and not only do I not believe that vivisection has helped the surgeon one bit, but I know that it has often led him astray." Prof. Lawson Tait, M.D., 1899, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons(F.R.C.S.), Edinburgh & England. Hailed as the most distinguished surgeon of his day, the originator of many of surgery's modern techniques, and recipient of numerous awards for medical excellence.

"Experiments have never been the means for discovery; and a survey of what has been attempted of late years in physiology will prove that the opening of living animals has done more to perpetuate error than to confirm the just views taken from the study of anatomy and natural motions." Sir Charles Bell, M.D., 1824, F.R.C.S., discoverer of 'Bell's Law' on motor and sensory nerves.

"Atrocious medical experiments are being done on children, mostly physically and handicapped ones, and on aborted foetuses, given or sold to laboratories for experimental purposes. This is a logical development of the practice of vivisection. It is our urgent task to accelerate its inevitable downfall." Prof. Piedro Croce, M.D., 1988, internationally renowned researcher, former vivisector.

"Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress. I learned how to operate from other surgeons. It's the only way, and every good surgeon knows that." Dr. Werner Hartinger, 1988, surgeon of thirty years, President of German League of Doctors against Vivisection(GLDAV).

"Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect." Prof. Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, 1980, of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany.

"Experiments on animals lead inevitably to experiments on people...As if an animal experiment could ever predict the same result on a person. And as if an experiment on one human being could enable us to foresee the reactions of another human being, whose biology and metabolism are different, whose blood pressure is different, whose lifestyle and age and nourishment and sensitivity and genes and everything else are different...We recognise that each single organism, whether human or animal, has its very own reactions...Today's orthodox medicine and suppressive surgery don't understand the purpose of disease and therefore don't know how to treat it. A real doctor's experience derives from his natural intuition coupled with his observation at the sickbed, but never from invasive, violent experiments on people, and much less on animals. Instead of vital hygiene, which aims at preservation or reconstruction of health by natural means and shuns all use of degrading, destructive chemicals, today's medical students are only taught to manipulate poisons and mutilate bodies. We demand that this be changed." Prof. Andre Passebecq, M.D., N.D., D.Psyc., 1989, Faculty of Medicine of Paris, then President of the International League of Doctors Against Vivisection (ILDAV).

"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." Dr. A. Sabin,1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine. "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." Linus Pauling, PHD, 1986, two time Nobel Prize Winner.

"Not only are the studies themselves often lacking even face value, but they also drain badly needed funds away from patient care needs." Dr. Neal Barnard, M.D., 1987, President of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Washington.

"All our current knowledge of medicine and surgery derives from observations of man following especially the anatomical-clinical method introduced by Virchow: symptoms of the patient while alive and the alterations found in the dead body. These observations have led us to discover the connection between smoking and cancer, between diet and arteriosclerosis, between alcohol and cirrhosis, and so on. Even the RH factor was not discovered on the macasus rhesus. The observations of Banting and Best on diabetes, attributed to experiments on dogs, were already well-known. Every discovery derives from observations on humans, which are subsequently duplicated in animals, and whenever the findings happen to concur, their discovery is attributed to animal experimentation. Everything we know today in medicine derives from observations made on human beings. The ancient Romans and Greeks gained most of their knowledge from epidemiological studies of people. The same goes for surgery. Surgery can't be learned on animals. Animals are anatomically completely different from man, their reactivity is completely different, their structure and resistance are completely different. In fact, exercises on animals are misleading. The surgeon who works a lot on animals loses the sensibility necessary for operating on humans." Prof. Bruno Fedi, M.D., 1986, Director of the City Hospital of Terni, Italy, anatomist, pathologist, specialist in urology, gynaecology and cancerology.

"My own conviction is that the study of human physiology by way of experimenting on animals is the most grotesque and fantastic error ever committed in the whole range of human intellectual activity." Dr. G.F.Walker, 1933.

"Why am I against vivisection? The most important reason is because it's bad science, producing a lot of misleading and confusing data which pose hazards to human health. It's also a waste of taxpayer's dollars to take healthy animals and artificially and violently induce diseases in them that they normally wouldn't get, or which occur in different form, when we already have the sick people who can be studied while they're being treated." Dr. Roy Kupsinel, M.D., 1988, medical magazine editor, USA.

"It is well known that animal effects are often totally different from the effects on people. This applies to substances in medical use as well as substances such as 245y and dioxin." A.L.Cowan, M.D., 1985, Acting Medical Officer of Health, New Plymouth, N. Z.

"The growing opposition to vivisection is understandable both on ethical and biological counts. However, a certain scientistic culture says they serve to save human lives. But reality is quite the opposite. Let's take the case of pesticides. These dangerous products, used in agriculture, are classified according to their acute toxicity, graduated with the Lethal Dose 50% tests on animals. This represents not only a useless sacrifice of animals, but it's an alibi that enables the chemical industry to sell products which are classified as harmless or almost harmless, but are in reality very harmful in the long run, even if taken in small doses. Many pesticides classified as belonging to the fourth category, meaning they can be sold and used freely, have turned out to be carcinogenic or mutagenic or capable of harming the fetus. Also in this case, animal tests are not only ambiguous, but they serve to put on the market products of which any carcinogenic effect will be ascertained only when used by human beings--the real guinea-pigs of the multinationals. And yet there are laboratory tests that can be used, which are cheaper and quicker than animal tests; in vitro tests on cell cultures, which have been proving their worth for years already. But the interests of the chemical industries which foist on us new products in all fields may not be questioned." Prof. Gianni Tamino, 1987, biologist at Padua University, a Congressman in the Italian Parliament.

"Animal model systems differ from their human counterparts. Conclusions drawn from animal research, when applied to human beings, are likely to delay progress, mislead, and do harm to the patient. Vivisection, or animal experimentation, should be abolished." Dr. Moneim Fadali, M.D., 1987, F.A.C.S., Diplomat American Board of Surgery and American Board of Thoracic Surgery, UCLA faculty, Royal College of Surgeons of Cardiology, Canada.

"Experiments on animals do not only mean torture and death for the animals, they also mean the killing of people. Vivisection is a double-edged sword." Major R.F.E.Austin, M.D.,1927, Royal College of Surgeons, Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians.

Cawadias (1953) has said that-"The history of medicine has shown that, whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result has been chaos, stagnation and disaster." (British Medical Journal, October 8 1955, p.867.)



Adverse Reactions Cover-up?
United States parent consumer activist group cites IOM report on vaccine risks; charges DHHS fails to monitor reports of deaths and injuries following vaccination and doctors fail to report to DHHS. Report from Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research (CAFMR) Newsletter Vol. 2 No. 1 1994 PO Box 234 Lawson 2783 NSW Australia.

Washington, D.C. - The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) operated by Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT) says that a new Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the association between DPT vaccine and permanent brain damage confirms that the vaccine can cause children to suffer acute brain inflammation which sometimes leads to death or permanent neurological damage. The parent consumer activist group also charges that they have obtained evidence through the Freedom of Information Act that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is failing to properly monitor reports of death and injuries following vaccination and that doctors around the country are failing to report deaths and injuries which occur after vaccination to DHHS.

In a year-long investigation of the Vaccine Adverse Reaction Reporting System (VAERS) operated by the Food and Drug Administration, NVIC/DPT analyzed VAERS computer discs used by the FDA to store data on reports of deaths and injuries following DPT vaccination. A total of 54,072 reports of adverse events following vaccination were listed in a 39-month period from July 1990 to November 1993 with 12,504 reports being associated with DPT vaccine, including 471 deaths.

A wide variation in the numbers of reports associated with different lots of DPT vaccine were discovered, with some lots listing many more deaths and injuries than others. In one DPT vaccine lot, there were 129 adverse events and 9 deaths reported between September 1992 and September 1993. Most adverse events occurred within a few days of vaccination and many reports also contained descriptions of classic pertussis vaccine reaction symptoms. This particular lot met the FDA's criteria for triggering an "investigation" (ie., report of one death or two serious injuries within a seven day period) 11 times within a 12-month period.

"There are some lots of vaccine which are associated with many more deaths and injuries than other lots. These lots are often referred to as 'hot lots.' Even though the FDA's criteria for an investigation was triggered 11 times within a 12-month period on just one of the many lots we looked at, we know for a fact the lot was never recalled. The FDA has not recalled a suspicious lot of DPT vaccine because of high numbers of deaths and injuries associated with it for at least 15 years," said Kathi Williams, NVIC/DPT co-founder and Acting Director. "That is because the position of those who operate VAERS is that the DPT vaccine does not cause death or injury. So the death and injury reports are ignored. It is a shocking example of how little we know about the true extent of vaccine-associated injuries and deaths."

Massive under-reporting of adverse effects of vaccines
The NVIC/DPT investigation was featured on the March 2 NBC News' "Now with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric" show. At the end of February, NVIC/DPT also conducted a survey of 159 doctors' offices in seven states, including Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Texas. When asked the question "In case of an adverse event after vaccination, does the doctor report it and, if yes, to whom?" only 28 out of 159 or 18 percent said they make a report to the FDA, CDC or state health department. In New York, only one out of 40 doctor's offices confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination.

"This shameful record of gross underreporting of adverse events following vaccination by doctors around the country coupled with the shameful cover-up of vaccine-associated deaths and injuries by the federal government is an example of why more and more parents are losing faith in the mass vaccination system. Many times our organization must help parents report their children's vaccine-associated death or injury because their doctor refuses to make a report," said Barbara Loe Fisher, NVIC/DPT co-founder and President. "Parents are legally required to vaccinate their children. Doctors should be forced to live up to their legal duty to report and DHHS should be forced to live up to its responsibility to seriously investigate every vaccine-associated death and injury and, especially, to identify and recall lots of DPT vaccine associated with high numbers of deaths and injuries."

In November 1991, while Fisher was a member of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee operated by the DHHS, she presented the Committee with a detailed summary of the stories of 90 families, who had reported vaccine-associated deaths and injuries to NVIC/DPT. Most of the 90 families with children or grandchildren, who had suffered deaths and injuries following DPT vaccination, said that their doctors refused to make a vaccine adverse event report to DHHS. NVIC/DPT had to help the families make the report to DHHS.

Upon analysis of the VAERS computer discs, NVIC/DPT discovered that some of the deaths and injuries, which NVIC/DPT had helped families report to DHHS, either were (1) never recorded in the VAERS computer system; (2) recorded but the information was inaccurate; or (3) not adequately followed-up.

Today, the IOM released a report that stated "The committee concludes that the balance of evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT and the forms of chronic nervous system dysfunction described in the NCES in those children who experience a serious, acute neurologic illness within 7 days after receiving DPT vaccine." NVIC/DPT has maintained for more than a decade that children can suffer permanent damage and die after suffering a neurological complication following DPT vaccination and has always cited the validity of the data from the British National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES), which was published in the early 1980's, and upheld by IOM in their newest report.

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) operated by Dissatisfied Parents Together (DPT) is a national, non-profit organization located in Vienna, VA (full address below). Founded in 1982, NVIC/DPT represents parents and health care professionals concerned about childhood diseases and vaccines and is dedicated to preventing vaccine deaths and injuries through education and working to obtain the right of all citizens to make informed, independent vaccination decisions.

In the mid-1980's DPT worked with Congress, physician organizations, DHHS and vaccine manufacturers to create the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which set up the nation's first vaccine injury compensation program, and also mandated that doctors give parents information on vaccine benefits and risks, record vaccine lot numbers, and record and report deaths and injuries following vaccinations National Vaccine Information Center: 512 W. Maple Ave, Suite 206, Vienna, Virginia 22180, United States. Phone (703) 938-0342.

This appalling situation would of course not be unique to the United States alone, but is very similar in Australia, as in all other countries that have allowed health matters to be succumbed to the Drug Trust. Therefore, as in the US, the Australian health authorities, regulatory bodies and physician organisations are doing their utmost in keeping the public in the dark about the true extent of deaths and injuries caused by vaccinations.

Incredibly, after decades of mass vaccinations in Australia, reporting of adverse reactions caused by vaccinations is not even compulsory in this country, except for the state of New South Wales, which was only made compulsory in 1991 because of strong pressure created by the Immunisation Investigation Group (IIG), an Australian counterpart of NVIC/DPT. Moreover, the reporting system in this country (not excluding NSW) suffers from the same ill fate as in the United States. Most doctors are reluctant to admit that his or her injection had caused a death or injury - let alone actually reporting it to the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (the official federal government body responsible for the monitoring of adverse effects of drugs and vaccines) or to his/her state health department - and that health officials are fobbing off most cases of vaccine-related deaths and injuries as due to other causes. For example, they're falsely claiming that in most cases the victims would have had certain underlying problems that coincidentally trigger during or near the time of inoculation, and would have occurred irrespective of the shot. Vaccine-related SIDS is a typical case.

Our view that there is a lack of reporting in this country was reaffirmed during a recent phone conversation with a disillusioned ADRAC official, who said that "There is a severe problem of underreporting, because most doctors don't bother reporting adverse reactions," or words to that effect.

Because of the inaction by Australia's health officials, IIG has launched its own register of vaccine-related deaths and injuries. If you or your child's vaccination has caused any adverse reaction or had failed to protect against the targeted disease write to the Immunisation Investigation Group, P.O. Box 900, Katoomba, New South Wales 2780.


February 1996

Congress Poised To Mandate Government Registration
and Tracking of All Americans

Imagine an America in which every citizen is required to carry a biometrically-encoded identification card as a precondition for conducting business. Imagine having your retina scanned every time you need to prove your identification. Imagine carrying a card containing your entire medical, academic, social, and financial history. Now, imagine that bureaucrats, police officers, and social workers have access under certain circumstances to the information on your card. Finally, imagine an America in which it is illegal to seek any employment without approval from the United States government.

This future may be more real than many Americans would like to think if Congressional lawmakers are allowed to proceed with their most recent attempt at monitoring the private lives of American citizens.

Enter S. 269, the latest attempt by Congress to mandate a computer-driven, biometrically-verifiable national identification system. If enacted into law, S. 269 would require the most comprehensive registration and tracking of American citizens by the federal government in history. Some experts have speculated that once the system envisioned by S. 269 is in place, the scope of the identity card could be expanded to include information of a highly personal nature, such as credit and spending history and medical, educational, and social records.

On February 29, 1996, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin deliberation on S. 269, The Immigration Reform Act of 1996. The bill has already passed the Immigration Subcommittee and is being promoted by Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). In the House, Republican Congressman Lamar Smith of Texas is the key sponsor of a similar bill, H.R.2202, The Immigration in the National Interest Act. Although the House bill is not as extreme in its proposals as the Senate version, it still contains provisions which should be viewed as objectionable by family privacy advocates. H.R. 2202 is scheduled for a final floor vote on March 18. The Clinton Administration is a strong proponent of both bills.

Why would Congress and the Clinton Administration consider such a plan?
Some Americans believe that America is in the midst of an illegal immigration crisis. Politicians want to show their constituents that they are taking strong action against illegal immigration. These politicians argue that the best way to control illegal immigration is to give the government the right to approve all employee hiring in
America. By using advanced technology to register, track and store information on every citizen, they argue, it will be easy to spot illegal immigrants.

If At First You Don't Succeed . . .
Similar (but unsuccessful) proposals to create a national registry and tracking system were advanced in the early 1980's by a powerful array of government agencies who brushed aside any concerns about personal privacy. Agencies like the Internal Revenue Service, the State Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency, each for their own unique reasons, craved a law which would require every American to carry a national identity card. One attempt to register and track Americans came close to being endorsed by the Reagan cabinet in July 1981, but it was stopped when President Reagan personally vetoed the idea on the grounds that it was a massive invasion of privacy.

In 1993, under the guise of an immunization bill, Congress attempted to register and track every American from birth, but the measure was defanged of its dangerous provisions after tens of thousands of calls and letters poured into Washington D.C from across the country asking Congress to respect their family privacy and individual liberties. Perhaps the most famous attempt to create a national registry came in 1994 as part of the Clinton Administration's ill-fated Health Security Act.

Each time these proposals have been mounted, pro-family forces have rallied to defeat them.

Smart Cards, Retina Scans, Voice Patterns and the Coming Biometric Privacy Invasion

Biometrics is the science of measuring unique physiological or behavioral characteristics. In recent years, the technology which drives this science has evolved well beyond fingerprinting and dental records. In fact, the technology is available to identify people by the length of their fingers, the pattern of their retinas, the sound of their voices, and the smell of their skin. Senate lawmakers intend to incorporate advanced forms of this technology as part of the most comprehensive identification and information gathering program in history.

On May 10, 1995, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration met for a hearing entitled, "Verification of Applicant Identity for the Purposes of Employment and Public Assistance." The hearing was chaired by Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) and was attended by Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Robert Rasor, from the Financial Crimes Division of the Secret Service, provided an explanation to the Subcommittee of the emerging "biometric" technologies' role in personal identification: "The use of biometrics is the means by which an individual may be conclusively identified There are two types of biometric identifiers: physical
and behavioral characteristics. Physiological biometrics include facial features, hand geometry, retinal and iris patterns, DNA, and fingerprints. Behavioral characteristics include voicecharacteristics and signature analysis."

Although the language of S. 269 does not mandate which specific biometric technique will be used to register, track and identify every American, it clearly calls for the use of biometrics (Section 115(7)). Senator Dianne Feinstein, an original drafter of the proposal, recently explained in a Capitol Hill magazine that it is her intention to see Congress immediately implement a national identity system where every American is required to carry a card with a "magnetic strip on which the bearer's unique voice, retina pattern, or fingerprint is digitally encoded."

"Fifteen years ago, they would have torn the building down."

Despite the fact that this bill could dramatically increase the role of the federal government in the private lives of Americans, the proposal has received relatively little media attention. Senate sponsors seem to be pleased by the opportunity to act covertly. During his closing remarks following the last panel of the May 10 subcommittee meeting, Senator Simpson mused on the relative lack of media attention given the hearings and the overlap between a national ID card and President Clinton's proposal for a "Health Security Card" two years ago: "There is much to do here, but I was just saying to Ted [Kennedy] before he left, a hearing like this fifteen years ago,they would have torn the building down. And here we are today just a bunch of us, kind of sitting around and no media, no nothing. This is fine with me. I get tired of them on this issue."

Key Problems With The Bill
Congressional attempts to include privacy safeguards in the language offer little hope or consolation. Agencies like the IRS and the Social Security Administration (SSA) have recently been subject to criticism for their lack of control over employees who, in violation of the privacy safeguards, were opening confidential files and making the information available to outsiders. Among other things, the bill establishes:

* That the federal government create a national database containing information on all Americans and immigrants eligible to work in this country (S. 269, Sec. 111).

* That all Americans may be required to obtain a national identification device, like an ID card (S. 269, Sec. 111(b)).

* Beginning in 1999, all employers must receive authorization from the national computer database before hiring any new employee this does not just apply to immigrants. For each new employee, the company would be required to transmit his name and identification number via modem and then wait for the national database to respond with an authorization code. If the person's name is not in the database, he
can not work (S. 269, Sec. 111).

* All American children must register with the SSA by age sixteen. When they register, they must provide the agency with a "fingerprint or other biometric data." The agency would place the fingerprint "or other biometric data" on the child's birth certificate, hoping to make the birth certificate more fraud-resistant (S. 269, Sec. 116 (7)).

* In violation of the Tenth Amendment, the Senate bill would create federalize rules pertaining to the creation of driver's licenses, and would unconstitutionally mandate that 1) social security numbers be attached to the license; and that 2) all drivers licenses "shall contain a fingerprint or other biometric data." (S.269, Sec. 116(b)).

A National Database Would Be a Nightmare!
Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) called the national computer registry and move toward a national identity card, "an abomination and wholly at odds with the American tradition of individual freedom." Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI) recently joined Armey in signing a letter denouncing the tracking system. Jack Kemp wrote in the New York Times, "An anti-privacy, anti-business and anti-American approach is no way to run immigration policy."

These bills would create an unprecedented increase in the government's ability to collect information. For the first time:

* The government would have a comprehensive registry of every American name, date of birth, place of birth, mother's maiden name, Social Security number, gender, race, and other information. Personal information that is now scattered in many different places would be consolidated in one database, controlled by a single federal agency.

* Personal information would be accessible to local agencies and anyone who claims to be an employer.

* The government would have to grant approval before a company enters into private employment contract with a private citizen.

The Legislation Is Likely To Pass Unless Significant Opposition Develops Soon
Under the current political climate, the bill is likely to be enacted into law. Most Senators do not even realize that the bill would create a national, computer-linked registry and tracking system driven by biometric technology. Those who do understand have not properly evaluated the tremendous threat to individual liberties and family privacy posed by the measure.

The House Version
In its current form, H.R. 2202 calls for pilot programs to test the idea of an computer-linked verification system. It calls for new and unprecedented databases and data sharing and computer link-ups between state and federal agencies, thus expanding the government's ability to monitor private citizens. Like S. 269, it would, for the first time, require private employers to receive approval from a federal computer database before entering into private employment contracts with individuals.

Opposition To The Bills
More than fifty influential organizations representing groups on both the right and left of the political spectrum have joined together in an effort to defeat these bills. A number of Representatives and Senators have responded favorably to their concerns. Two of them, Senators Spence Abraham (R-MI) and Rus Feingold (D-WI) have joined together to offer amendments to delete all references to registries, ID cards, or employment verification programs from the Senate bill.

Action Is Urgently Needed
The registry and tracking system currently before Congress must be defeated. Now is the time to write and call urging your lawmakers on Capitol Hill to oppose any national registry, tracking and identification system. Tell them that the threat to individual liberty and family privacy far outweigh any potential benefits that such a system might provide in curbing illegal immigration. If your senator is a member of the Judiciary Committee urge him to support the Abraham/Feingold Amendment. Tell them that there are acceptable solutions to America's illegal immigration problem but giving the government the power to register and track its citizens is not one
of them. [Note: S. 269 may be officially redubbed S.1394.]

Call your Senator at (202) 225-3121 and your Representative at (202) 224-3121.This special report was prepared by the legal staff of the National Center for Home Education, P.O. Box 125, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129. Permission is granted to reprint this report in its entirety.

LOTS OF NEW INFO! updated 5/5/96.
(A Natural Way to Health Web Page) .

Have you thought of where you're going when this earthly life is past? Will the seed that you are sowing bring a harvest that will last?
- Jacobsen


In-Vitro Fertilisation (IVF): a Scientific Sham?
The propaganda with which the IVF program is sold to the general public relies on its purported usefulness in the treatment of women who are infertile. The fine print, however, is that IVF is only of potential benefit to a small percentage of all infertile people-generally speaking, women who are unable to conceive due to faulty fallopian tubes.

The bitter irony is that the majority of women who can benefit from IVF have lost their fertility through totally preventable disease, ie: Pelvic Inflammatory Disease(PID). Very few women are born with defunct tubes. PID has several causes, some well understood, others less so. Infection is the basic problem- mostly venereal infections, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia. One of the few universal truths in the medical model is that 'prevention is better than cure'. If, as the propoganda for reproductive technologies like IVF implies, scientists really want to solve the problem of infertility, then surely the optimal area for research is in preventing infertility. So learning more and educating the community about the prevention of PID ought to be the most profitable (ie: maximum benefit for maximum number of people) area of research.

In her book Living Laboratories, Robyn Rowland reveals how some scientists propose moving on to more alarming possibilities-such as using brain-dead women as trouble-free surrogate mothers or as human "egg farms". It appears we are not far from actualising the nightmare-future forewarned in Aldous Huxley's novel Brave New World.

To people who find it difficult to understand why resources are directed to IVF, rather than to prevention, consider the glamour and profit, for the pharmaceutical-medical establishment, which emanates from reproductive technologies. They gain neither of these through preventing infertility. One should also consider the sexual politics of (mostly male) scientists taking control of women's bodies and reproductive powers. IVF yields only a 10% success rate. In other words it has a 90% failure rate. With such a dismal track record, would comparable traumatic experimental procedures be allowed to continue if the subjects were men?

EYE PO Box 1327 WODEN ACT 2606 Australia.

ROWLAND, Robyn -(1992)LIVING LABORATORIES-Women and Reproductive Technologies, Sun , Australia.
WILLIAMS, Bill & GARDENER, Gisela -(1989) MEN: Sex, Power and Survival , Ch.13 Greenhouse Publications, Australia.


If the addition of sodium-fluoride to our (Australian) water supplies is so safe and effective, why has it been banned or abandoned in such enlightened European countries as Norway, Sweden, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, France, Italy, and West Germany? (1) In proportion to its population, Australia is the most heavily fluoridated country in the world; 98% of the world's population do not drink artificially fluoridated water.

A computer analysis of the data from the largest dental survey ever done -of nearly 40,000 school children - by the U.S. National Institutes of Dental Research revealed no correlation between tooth decay and fluoridation. In fact, many of the non-fluoridated cities had better tooth decay rates than fluoridated cities. The city with the lowest rate of tooth decay was not fluoridated. Of the three with the highest rate of decay, two were partially fluoridated. Similarly, the Missouri State Bureau of Dental Health, "had conducted a survey of more than 6,500 lifelong resident second- and sixth-grade children in various parts of Missouri and found that, overall... 'there were no significant differences between children drinking optimally fluoridated water and children drinking suboptimally fluoridated water.'" (Prof. Albrtt W.Burgstahler, Uni.of Kansas) (2)

Even "...the Journal of the American Dental Association (states) that 'the currently reported decline in caries in the U.S. and other Western industrialised countries has been observed in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same.'" Chemical & Engineering News, August 1, 1988.

Moreover, a University of Arizona study, reported in the 27 July 1992 Chemical & Engineering News, found that "the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth."

Likewise, " districts reporting the highest caries-free rates, were totally unfluoridated. How does one explain this?"A.S. Gray, D.D.S., Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, no.10, 1987. (2)

Figures released by the U.S. National Centre for Health Statistics reveal that the ten cities with the worst rate of infant mortality have all been artificially fluoridated at least 17 years or longer! After the first full year of fluoridation, Kansas city's (USA) infant mortality increased 13%(The Kansas City Star 21.11.82). After the fifth year of fluoridation in Kansas city, infant mortality increased 36%(Kansas City Star 26.2.87). Japan, with no fluoridation, has the lowest infant mortality rate in the industrialised world, and the longest life expectancy. (3)

"...Full-scale retrospective epidemiological (population) studies whose scientific value has been demonstrated before the courts have revealed that there is a marked correlation between increased cancer mortality rates and artificial flouridation of public water supplies... " Dr. J Benoit-Bundock, Senior Adviser to the Minister of the Environment, Quebec, Canada, 1979, in a government report recommending against fluoridation of Quebec's water supplies (4)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice John P. Flaherty, after holding a lengthy series of judicial hearings, issued an injunction against the use of fluoride: "The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water extremely deleterious to the human body. A review of evidence will disclose that there was no evidence to the contrary. . . Prior to my hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any thought. . . I seriously believe that few responsible people have objectively reviewed the evidence." (5)

"Thus some of the serious charges that are being laid at its door- genetic damage, birth defects, cancer and allergy response - may arise from fluoride interference after all" New Scientist 22.1.81.(6)

"A family sized tube of fluoride toothpaste contains sufficient fluoride to kill a 3.6 kg baby." Dr.G.E Smith 1983 (7)

The Journal of the American Medical Association, February 10, 1951 had this to say about fluoride: "Chronic intoxications resulting from prolonged intake of smaller amounts of fluoride include dental fluorosis, ... Fluorine also tends to accumulate in the bones, leading to hypercalcifications and brittleness. Ligaments and tendons also become calcified. Serious symptoms may ensue, such as loss of mobility of joints, easy fracture and pressure on the spinal cord. Other effects include baldness in young men, anemia and decreased blood clotting power. And in women, painful menstruation, lowered birth rate, high incidence of fracture, thyroid alterations and liver damage." (8)

re: Fluoridation.
In November 1994 the Victorian Parliament passed an amendment to the Fluoridation Act by changing the Constitution to stop the Supreme Court from hearing cases against Artifical Fluoridation. If you are poisoned by fluoride in Victoria tough luck, there is no protection under law.

The Tasmanian Government in 1995 passed a Bill through the Lower House to prohibit the holding of meetings on the subject of Flouridation anywhere at all in Tasmania. Called the Consequential Amendments Bill it was later withdrawn but is being re-worded. Outside of Tasmania, no outcry, no boycotts, why?

A draconian law was enacted in NSW in 1989. Because of this law, a Council cannot cease Fluoridation of its own water supply, after requests by public demand, unless it gets permission from the Health Department. And there is little chance of that.

Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). This U.N. law states that 'no one shall be subjected without his consent to medical or scientific experimentation.' The Health Dept. cannot produce one double blind scientific study which proves absolutely the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. We are all experimental subjects!

If fluoridation is so safe or effective, why this repressive legislation? Why this denial of our rights? Why don't we hear about it in the media? What don't they want us "little people" to find out?

"Fluoridation is a hoax; and a potentially dangerous hoax. Its promotion has involved: scientific skullduggery; political and commercial chicanery on a grand scale; the deliberate destruction of the careers of dentists opposed to fluoridation; the vilification of eminent individuals; the distortion of damaging evidence and the fabrication of supportive data..." Dr. G.E. Smith. 1983 (9)

"A handful of dentists in the various States have advised Health Ministers that fluoridation is universally safe. But dentists' expertise is limited to areas of the mouth, specifically the teeth and gums; they know nothing of what can happen to fluoride in other parts of the body, and most of them couldn't care less... Anyone who looks at the original evidence would be appalled, because it is shoddy, superficial and inadequate. However, dentists have said fluoridation is safe and they can't go back on that; too many of them would be left with egg on their faces. Additionally, there is the growing fear of litigation... Politicians don't like having to repeal laws they themselves introduced; and Professors of Dentistry don't fancy losing their reputations!"" Dr. Geoffrey E. Smith. 1983 (10)

For an information kit on what we are not told about fluoride, including the possible conspiracies behind it, send $6 (Aus.) to: EYE PO Box 1327 Woden ACT 2606 Australia.

1) E.McCabe 1988 Oxygen Therapies p.163 2) all above info. on reduction of dental-caries taken from Nexus magazine Vol.2 no. 11 1992-93 p.9 3) all info. on infant mortality from Nexus op cit. p.9 4) quoted in Dr. Geoffrey E.Smith's "Fluoride: the Frightening Facts"Simply Living Vol.2 no.1 p.35 1983 5) In E. McCabe 1988 op cit. p. 162 6) in Dr. G.E.Smith 1983 op cit. p. 31 7) ibid. p. 33 8) in Morris Bealle's Super Drug Story, ch. 8 "Rat poison in your Water" p.131, 1963, Columbia Publishing Co., Washington. 9) ibid. p.30. 10) ibid. p.36

P.S.- You can't avoid fluoride by drinking bottled beverages. Where do you think the water in them comes from? The tap! Also, fluoridated water is used to produce and subsequently concentrates in the food we eat. Moreover, you absorb it through your skin when you shower! The only way to avoid fluoride is by removing it through political action. We need to make artificial fluoridation of water supplies an election issue.

The Australian Fluoridation News, GPO Box 935G, Melbourne Vic 3001 Australia, is recommended. $15 per annum for 6 issues. Or see NEXUS magazine, (occasional articles on fluoride) available in most newsagents or from PO Box 30 Mapleton Qld. 4560 Australia ($25 Aus. for 6 bi-monthly issues). Nexus Europe: 55 Queens Rd. E. Grinstead W.Sussex, RH19 1BG, UK.



U.N. - World Health Organisation's "CODEX":
A Threat to Health Freedom

Few Americans have heard of the United Nations / World Health Organization (WHO) Codex Alimentarious (Nutrition Code) Commission or "Codex", partly because it usually meets in Rome. Very little has appeared about Codex in U.S. newsletters and magazines read by people interested in vitamins, alternative medicine and health freedom, but it may pose the greatest threat to health freedom in the world today.

The commission meets every two years, and any delegate can propose a change in its standards. Attorney Suzanne Harris has reviewed a partial list of international organizations "allowed" to send delegates and found that more than 90 percent represent giant multinational pharmaceutical corporations. The only "consumer" organization she saw listed is the "International Organization of Consumer Unions", which means that right now the general public here has zero representation on this critically important committee!

What Supplements Will They Allow You?
In 1996, Codex will meet in Bonn to make radical changes in the rules governing dietary supplements for member nations. Consumers now face an ominous new threat in the proposals made by the German delegation, called "Proposed Draft Guidelines for Dietary Supplement". The German plan calls for the following:

1. No vitamin, mineral, herb, etc., can be sold for prophylactic (preventative) or therapeutic use;
2. None sold as food can exceed potency (dosage) levels set by the commission.
3. Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding -eliminating the escape clause within the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT) that allows a nation to set its own standards.
4. All new dietary supplements would automatically be banned unless they go through the Codex approval process.

If these Draconian measure are adopted, any party to GATT (e.g., the United States) which does not accept the new standards can be heavily sanctioned (fined) by the World Trade Organization. The WTO will have the right to levy enormous fines on any nation that gets "out of line" with the potential to cripple entire sectors of that nation's economy!

The sole U.S. delegate to Codex has been Elizabeth A. Yetley, Ph.D., R.D., of the FDA. Responding to political pressure in the United States, so far she has voted for health freedom, but with little result - at the last meeting the vote went 16 - 2 in favor of the German proposal!

What You Can Do About It
Clearly, we cannot expect much help from Congress which surrendered much of its power to deal with the issue when it passed GATT. Under the agreement, member nations must "harmonize" their rules governing the manufacture of health and medical products with new international standards so as to be "in line" with them. Congress cannot rescind its vote of GATT - on the contrary, the single U.S. delegate to this international commission can be outvoted by delegates from other countries.

Two steps have already been taken in the Codex process, which is now at "Step Three". The proposal is going to be formalized, and written responses and debate over its specific features will be undertaken.

In 1996, the FDA will convene a public hearing wherein interested persons and organizations will be able to discuss and question Codex and the U.S. position on it. The FDA will then draft a final U.S. position paper to be submitted to the five-day 1996 Bonn Codex meeting. The paper will be highly influential in shaping the final proposed regulations.

It is vitally important that you write to Dr. Robert Moore, GDA Office of Special Nutritionals, HFS-456, 200 C St., S.W., Washington, DC 20204, expressing your objections to the German Codex proposal. Also write / fax your senators and congresspersons, as well as every member of the Senate Labor Committee and the House Commerce Committee.

Comment email:
International Health Association
c/o Life Extension Foundation Political Office, 1534 Polk St. Hollywood, FL 33020 USA.


The United States of America Has Gone Mad

Why pharmaceutical drugs kill

The deadly dangers of Prozac and Ritalin

Doctors against vivisection

Cover ups!

Big Brother U.S.A.

IVF: A sham?

The Fluoride Hoax

W.H.O.'s CODEX world health threat

Health Care Petition
© IMCC. All rights reserved. Site designed by Rebecca Bing.