Tuesday, November 29, 2011


Oxytocin is the hormone of human love and bonding. It is the hormone that helps a baby get born and the hormone that helps a mother produce milk/nourishment for her child. It is also the hormone that allows for the neurobiology of love to activate at birth - during which a mother and child (and dad if he is present) can experience profound levels of deep love and intimate connection - the experience of which can hold that family together forever.

Whenever technological interventions are introduced during birth, the production of natural oxytocin is undermined. This is especially true when synthetic oxytocin is introduced during labor (i.e., pitocin), or when trauma of any kind is inflicted on the baby or the mother during labor and within the first few minutes after birth.

Almost every single hospital birth protocol undermines the capacity of a mother and child to bond. These damaging protocols include, but are not limited to, induction, amniotomy, the use of cytotec or pitocin (or any drugs whatsoever) during labor or immediately after birth, the clamping and cutting of the umbilical cord, suctioning, putting ointment in the baby's eyes so that it's eyes burn and it cannot make solid eye contact with its parents, swaddling (which prevents skin-to-skin contact and restricts movement of the baby), vaccinations immediately after birth, so-called vitamin k shots, separating mother and child at birth, neonatal intensive care unit protocols, circumcision, and the list goes on.

To learn more about the damage being done to our children and our families during hospital birth, please visit my website and listen to my most recent radio shows with Gena Kirby:


Below is an interesting article about the importance of oxytocin. This article barely scratches the surface with respect to the danger now facing humanity as it blindly accepts hospital protocols, endangering its inborn capacity to experience enduring and authentic human love.

Of Human Bonding

Published: July 2, 2006

"If I had $37 billion to give to charity, I'd give some of it to a foundation that would invent an Oxytocin Meter. That way we could predict who is headed for success and who for failure. We could figure out which organizations are thriving and which are sick.

Oxytocin is a hormone that helps mammals bond. Female rats injected with oxytocin nurture newborns placed in their cages, which they would otherwise attack. Prairie voles with oxytocin receptors form lifelong monogamous bonds, whereas other varieties of voles without the receptors mate promiscuously.

In humans, oxytocin levels rise during childbirth, breast feeding and sex. Humans with higher oxytocin levels are more likely to trust other people. They are more resistant to stress and social phobias. Humans seem to experience delicious oxytocin floods in the brain after being with someone they love. It's no wonder neuroscientists — displaying the branding genius for which they are famous — have nicknamed oxytocin "the affiliative neuropeptide."

I figure if we can hang Oxytocin Meters around people's necks, we can tell who is involved in healthy relationships and who isn't. If you walked into an office where nobody is having an oxytocin moment, then you'd know you're in a dysfunctional organization and it's time to get out of there.

Now I'm not really trying to reduce all human relationships to one hormone. But I am trying to emphasize the importance of human attachments. We in the policy world debate education, incarceration rates, poverty, productivity and competitiveness, and we try to figure out which qualities individuals need to thrive in the new economy. But often it's the space between individuals that really matters, the nature of their attachments.

Attachment theory has been thriving for decades, but it's had little impact on public policy. That's because the policy world is a supermagnet for people who are emotionally avoidant. If you go to a Congressional hearing and talk demography, you are treated like a serious policy wonk, but if you start talking about relationships, people look at you as if you're Oprah.

But everything we're learning about the brain confirms the centrality of attachments to human development and the wisdom of Adam Smith's observation that the "chief part of human happiness arises from the consciousness of being beloved." (Brain research rarely reveals anything new about human nature; it just tells you which of the old verities are most important.)

And so maybe it's time to focus a little less on individual capacities and more on nurturing attachment. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Over the past few decades federal and state governments have spent billions of dollars trying to improve high schools. Much of the effort has gone into trying to improve individual math and reading scores. But the effects have been modest and up to 30 percent of students drop out — a social catastrophe.

The dropout rates are astronomical because humans are not machines into which you can input data. They require emotion to process information. You take kids who didn't benefit from stable, nurturing parental care and who have not learned how to form human attachments, and you stick them in a school that functions like a factory for information transmission, and the results are going to be horrible.

The Gates Foundation recently sponsored focus groups with dropouts. The former students knew how detrimental dropping out would be. Most were convinced they could have graduated if they wanted to. But their descriptions of school amounted to a portrait of emotional disengagement: teachers were burned out and boring; discipline was lacking; classes weren't challenging; there weren't enough tutors and wasn't anyone to talk to; parents were uninvolved.

If school is unsatisfying but having a child or joining a gang seems as if it would be emotionally satisfying, then many students, especially those with insecure attachments at home, are going to follow their powerful drive to go where the attachments seem to be.

If I had $37 billion, I would focus it on the crucial node where attachment skills are formed: the parental relationship during the first few years of life. I'd invest much of it with organizations, like Circle of Security, that help at-risk mothers and fathers develop secure bonds with their own infants, instead of just replicating the behaviors of their own parents. I'd focus on the real resource crisis that afflicts the country. It's not the oil shortage. It's the oxytocin shortage."


Ready to rock your world? Listen to Jeanice Barcelo being interviewed during two 90-minute radio shows with Gena Kirby on Progressive Parenting Radio. Shows contain leading-edge information about trauma-based mind control and the genetic alteration of the human species through the protocols of hospital birth.

For those who are truth seekers — who are not afraid to see the big picture — you won’t want to miss these shows.



Listen here for Show #1 recorded on 11/14/11:

Listen here for Show #2, recorded on 11/28/11


"Most people are not aware that nearly EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components.

This is due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States (over 90 percent of all corn is GM corn and over 95 percent all soy is GM soy).

As you might suspect, it's in the interest of the industry to keep the prevalence of GM ingredients quiet and they won't go down without a fight.

Biotech Industry Spends More Than Half a Billion to Influence Congress

In just over a decade, the food and agriculture biotechnology industry has spent more than $572 million in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures, according to an analysis by Food & Water Watch.

Key among the goals of this intense lobbying effort is to prevent GM food labeling and keep Americans in the dark about the contents of their food.

The analysis states:

"The food and agriculture biotechnology industry has been flexing its financial political muscle to ease the regulatory oversight of genetically modified foods. Lobbying efforts for some of these firms and groups have included approval of cloned food and genetically engineered food, animals and livestock.

Companies are also fighting to eliminate or prevent labeling on genetically modified foods in the United States and preventing other countries from regulating genetically modified foods. These efforts have dovetailed with lobbying to tighten intellectual property law protections over patented seeds and animals in attempts to further benefit the biotech industry."

Over 95 percent of Americans polled said they think GM foods should require a label, stating it's an ethical issue and consumers should be able to make an informed choice. Like people in Europe, Americans are suspicious of GM foods, and a large part of why many continue to buy them is because they are unaware that they're already in the food. A prominent GM food label would be a death sentence to U.S. GM crops, which are right now enjoying a free for all when it comes to entering the food market.

As Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association stated:

"Why are there basically no genetically engineered foods or crops anywhere in Europe, while 75 percent of U.S. supermarket foods—including many so-called "natural" foods—are GE tainted?

The answer is simple. In Europe genetically modified foods and ingredients have to be labeled. In the U.S. they do not. Up until now, in North America, Monsanto and the Biotechnocrats have enjoyed free reign to secretly lace non-organic foods with gene-spliced viruses, bacteria, antibiotic-resistant marker genes, and foreign DNA—mutant "Frankenfoods" shown to severely damage the health of animals, plants, and other living organisms in numerous scientific studies.

Monsanto and their allies understand the threat that truth-in-labeling poses for GMOs.

As soon as genetically modified foods start to be labeled in the U.S.,http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif millions of consumers will start to read these labels and react.

They'll complain to grocery store managers and companies, they'll talk to their family and friends. They'll start switching to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers start complaining about GM foods and food ingredients; stores will eventually stop selling them; and farmers will stop planting them.

Genetically engineered foods have absolutely no benefit for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from ever getting a public discussion, much less coming to a vote in Congress..."

To read the full article, please follow this link:

Take Heed - Nearly Every Processed Food You Eat is Contaminated with this Material


As posted on Bitch Media:

Bringing Up Baby: Reagan's Cesarean on Up All Night and the Issue of Control in Childbirth

"Dr. Joseph DeLee, the grandfather of modern obstetric medicine in the United States, believed that childbirth is a dangerous disease that must be managed and controlled. “It strikes physicians as well as laymen as bizarre,” DeLee wrote in 1920, “to call labor an abnormal function, a disease, and yet it is a decidedly pathological process.” DeLee taught 11,000 nurses and doctors during his prestigious career, and institutionalized “The Prophylactic Forceps Operation” as the gold standard of American obstetrics.

According to DeLee’s model, women were knocked unconscious (or, sometimes, semi-unconscious) with morphine, scopolamine, and ether. The doctor then performed a generous episiotomy (cutting the vagina and perineum), removed the baby with forceps, and sewed the incision. Variations of this routine were standard into the ‘70s. DeLee’s guiding principle was that OBs shouldn’t respond to emergency childbirth scenarios; rather, they should prevent these scenarios from unfolding by controlling birth from the outset.

Today, new methods have replaced DeLee’s, and yet popular obstetric interventions (cesareans, amniotomies, labor-inducing drugs, episiotomies, epidurals) are still designed to transfer control from the woman to her labor assistant. 33% of births in the United States are by cesarean, a rate that has grown significantly during the previous decade, in tandem with increasing rates of maternal injury and death. Yet representations of childbirth in television and film rarely show cesareans. Which is why I was so grateful for Reagan’s recent childbirth episode on Up All Night.

Recap: At 12:36pm, Reagan goes into labor. She and her husband Chris take a limo to the hospital and chat casually; the sense of fear and urgency that is so typical of childbirth on television was, thankfully, absent. Reagan is dismayed to discover that her female OB isn’t available for the delivery. A handsome young male doctor arrives, and Reagan requests a female doc. “Do we even have a choice in this matter?” Reagan’s husband, Chris, asks. “No,” the doctor replies. Shortly thereafter, Chris plus doctor poke fun at Reagan's detailed birth plan. As Reagan’s labor progresses, Chris pressures her to get an epidural, but she repeatedly declines. Her attachment to a drug-free birth is framed as irrational. She takes an epidural at 7:10pm. At 11:29pm, the doctor says, “Pushing’s not working, Mrs. Brinkley. The baby’s head may be too big. I’m recommending a c-section,” to which Reagan says, “No thank you.” The doctor says, “Actually, it’s not optional.” Reagan’s disagreement with her OB is framed as a control problem. “Babe, you gotta let go of the plan,” Chris says soothingly. “We have to listen to the doctor, OK?” At 12:37am, Reagan has a cesarean.

The story arc emphasizes Reagan’s eventual relinquishing of control and surrender to the unpredictability of childbirth. This episode was similar to the Murphy Brown childbirth episode, during which Murphy finally learns that she can’t control childbirth.

It’s true that childbirth is a deeply unpredictable experience that requires emotional strength and versatility. However, pop culture’s chronic portrayal of laboring women as “control freaks” who must be persuaded to submit to medical pressure reflects the problematic assumption that the women's requests are misguided or silly. The concept of control holds an inherent judgment of the circumstances. The “control freak” giving birth is the one who is wrong.

“The baby’s head may be too big” is one of many reasons doctors give when pressuring women into cesareans. Cephalopelvic disproportion—in which the baby’s head is too big to clear the mom’s pelvis—is extremely rare. Or was he referring to macrosomia (a big baby), another vague diagnosis? The “big head” is cited by doctors in cases when there has been no confirmation whatsoever of actual cephalopelvic disproportion or macrosomia.

Increasingly, “emergency” cesareans are performed in the absence of an emergency. “Failure to progress” is the most commonly cited reason for an emergency cesarean, and yet the time cap on labor varies from hospital to hospital. Some doctors say eight hours of labor necessitates a cesarean. Others say ten, twelve, or eighteen hours. Failure to progress now accounts for as many as half of cesareans in first-time moms.

Meanwhile, many elective cesareans aren’t actually elected. It’s true that some moms request a cesarean early in their pregnancy. These “maternal request” cesareans—which are by far the safest type—are frequently reported in the media yet account for a tiny number of “elective” cesareans. Many women who have a “repeat elective” because they had a cesarean with their previous delivery and are never given the option of a vaginal delivery. Many hospitals and doctors won’t assist vaginal deliveries for women who previously had a cesarean. In states where midwives are illegal or legally barred from assisting women who previously had a cesarean, women who desire a vaginal delivery must locate a hospital that will perform one, or travel to another state with different midwifery laws. Those who can't travel are essentially forced into “elective” cesareans, despite mounting evidence that repeat cesareans actually increase the likelihood of maternal death when compared to a vaginal delivery, even for women who previously had a cesarean.

Meanwhile, first-time moms are told that if they pass their due date, they need to either be induced or schedule an “elective” cesarean. One woman who I recently interviewed told me that her doctor informed her—two days before her due date—that she should schedule a c-section. His reason was that if she passes her due date, she will need to be induced, and if she’s induced, there’s a 75% chance that she’ll end up having an emergency cesarean (a totally made-up number), which he explained are dangerous. Frightened by this hypothetical scenario, the woman agreed to schedule a cesarean—before her due date, and with absolutely no medical indication. “I didn’t question the doctor’s recommendation; I just assumed there was a good reason for it,” she told me.

In “The C-section Boom,” a recent article in Boston Globe Magazine, obstetrician Adam Wolfberg wrote that, “the truth is, an obstetrician can persuade almost any patient at any time that a caesarean is the best choice,” and that “some cesareans are done for the wrong reasons: a fear of litigation or a doctor’s convenience.”

OBs are more likely to be sued after a poor infant outcome than after a poor maternal outcome, and cesareans are more likely to prevent various types of infant outcomes while upping the risks to mom. “The statistical translation of this fear (of litigation),” Dr. Wolfberg wrote, “is the rise in the number of caesareans done for ‘fetal distress’—20 percent in seven years ... Babies aren’t having more ‘distress’; doctors are just more likely to make this diagnosis and operate because of it.”

In many situations, cesareans are safer for baby and more dangerous for mom. Does anybody tell mom about this? No. Are women told that an epidural will increase the likelihood that they’ll undergo an emergency cesarean? Not usually. Are moms told that if they’re given an epidural, they’ll almost certainly get an episiotomy as well? Not always. Indeed, some OBs perform episiotomies without warning, and there are stories of doctors who tell mom there was "tearing" instead of disclosing the episiotomy.

Up All Night’s birth episode was realistic. Reagan and Chris’ acceptance that an emergency cesarean was necessary reflects real-world attitudes about control and childbirth. Informed consent during childbirth care is not a well-publicized issue, and complaints about treatment during childbirth care are met with the same response: well-educated white women—women like Reagan—have a control problem, and if they complain about their experience, it means they're unappreciative of modern medicine. Few seem to notice that those who aren’t like Reagan (people of color, queer people, people with disabilities, uninsured people, etc.) also face problems (far worse problems) in childbirth care; they're just not in a position to complain about it. Perhaps the biggest challenge in fighting injustices in childbirth care is that women themselves have accepted the prevailing attitudes toward maternal complaints, and very serious problems in childbirth care have rather successfully been ignored and deflected by our culture’s glee in casting women as control freaks."


Protester Attempts Citizen's Arrest Of Washington State Lawmakers


Chemtrails and Monsanto’s New Aluminum Resistance Gene – Coincidence?

By Barbara H. Peterson

Farm Wars

"Why did Monsanto Develop an Aluminum Resistance Gene?

Monsanto is currently marketing an aluminum resistance gene. Here’s the spin, folks:

Small-scale, resource-poor farmers in developing countries face daily stresses, including poor soils, drought, and lack of inputs. Ongoing trends such as climate change and population growth will likely exacerbate binding stresses. A new generation of genetically engineered (GE) crop research aims to alleviate these pressures through the improvement of subsistence crops—such as cassava, sorghum, and millet—that incorporate traits such as tolerance to drought, water, and aluminum in soils as well as plants with more efficient nitrogen and phosphorus use. (http://www.ifpri.org/publication/delivering-genetically-engineered-crops-poor-farmers)

Now, let’s take a look at journalist Michael Murphy’s research into chemtrails, geo-engineering, and the fact that extremely high levels of aluminum and barium are found in water, snow and soil, in areas shown to have heavy chemtrail pattferns (three-part video):


Coincidence that Monsanto will “come to the rescue” with aluminum resistance genes because normal plants die off in the presence of excess aluminum? Or opportunistic capitalism and planned corporate food monopoly courtesy of Monsanto and the Hegelian Dialectic based on insider information that a proposed “geo-engineering” scheme is already in place that is filling our atmosphere with chemtrails containing aluminum and barium?

This is no game folks. We are being hit from all sides with a planned, homicidal, genocidal agenda to make a very few families even richer than they already are, and reduce the world’s population to 500 million as set forth in the Georgia Guidestones. This is nothing short of biological warfare."


This is an awesome video that contains profoundly beautiful truths. Yhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifou can find more of this wisdom in the Anastasia books written by Vladimir Megre (http://ringingcedars.com). The books are awakening people by the millions and changing the face of creation. Enjoy!

The Ringing Cedars - Anastasia's Vegan Spirit


The sociopaths running this country and the ones who are bent on creating a "new world order" will stop at nothing to get humans to conform to their sick and twisted agenda. Lithium in drinking water is just another means by which they are attempting to mind-control us and drug us into submission.

It is most definitely time to take our planet back.

“Experts” Push For Lithium To Be Added To Our Drinking Water

"Apparently there are not enough chemicals already added to our drinking water, as there is now a call by “experts” to further poison our water supplies by adding Lithium. Their main reason is to decrease suicide and violent crime rates.

So it this how we wish to function as a society? Instead of dealing with our issues at hand, let’s drug ourselves so that we don’t have to deal with personal subjects that may be perceived as hard, negative or scary. This is not a time for putting our heads in the sand and pretending or even hoping that an issue will just resolve itself. Where is the personal growth in that? Don’t you feel elated when you resolve a personal issue that no longer hangs over your head or weights on your mind? It is more important than ever to clear ourselves of past issues that we have held onto and allow more room for the new energies coming to earth to take its place within our being.

What is Lithium usually prescribed for?

Bi polar disorder
Agitation not associated with bipolar disorder
Depression and to boost the effect of antidepressants
As a mood stabiliser
Sever Migraine Headaches

“Much like fluoride, lithium alters the brain’s normal production of serotonin and norepinephrine, which in turn artificially alters the way an individual thinks and how he or she feels about a given situation. Lithium is literally a mind-altering, antidepressant chemical substance that those promoting it openly admit modifies brain function. And yet they purport that forcibly inducing these chemical changes on the unwitting populations of the world is a good and acceptable idea.” Source

So what are “experts” saying?

“Lithium has been heralded by some experts as the next potential flouride, after scientists found suicide rates were lower in areas where the drinking water had higher concentrations of the element, reports the Daily Mail” Source

“Time to supplement? Some scientists believe lithium could reduce suicide rates if traces were added to drinking water. The study, published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, analysed a sample of 6,460 lithium measurements and then compared suicide rates across 99 districts.” Source

If anyone still believes that adding fluoride into our drinking water is a good idea. Please read our article on this subject here.

What are some side effects of Lithium?

extreme thirst, urinating more or less than usual;
weakness, fever, feeling restless or confused, eye pain and vision problems;
restless muscle movements in your eyes, tongue, jaw, or neck;
pain, cold feeling, or discolorations in your fingers or toes;
feeling light-headed, fainting, slow heart rate;
hallucinations, seizure (blackout or convulsions);
fever with muscle stiffness, sweating, fast or uneven heartbeats; or
early signs of lithium toxicity, such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, drowsiness, muscle weakness, tremor, lack of coordination, blurred vision, or ringing in your ears.

Less serious side effects may include:

mild tremor of the hands;
weakness, lack of coordination;
mild nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, stomach pain or upset;
thinning or drying of the hair; or
itching skin.

Side Effects Source

Adding Lithium appears to be yet another way that our population can be “dumbed down”. Why would governments want to turn our drinking water into a chemical cocktail? Perhaps this way society we will be more malleable and less people will be concerned about what is really going on in this world."

Sunday, November 27, 2011


Excerpts from "The Rituals of American Hospital Birth" by by Robbie E. Davis-Floyd, Ph.D.

To read the full article, follow this link:

"Routine obstetric procedures are highly symbolic. For example, to be seated in a wheelchair upon entering the hospital, as many laboring women are, is to receive through their bodies the symbolic message that they are disabled; to then be put to bed is to receive the symbolic message that they are sick. Although no one pronounces, "You are disabled; you are sick," such graphic demonstrations of disability and illness can be far more powerful than words. One woman told me:

I can remember just almost being in tears by the way they would wheel you in. I would come into the hospital, on top of this, breathing, you know, all in control. And they slap you in a wheelchair! It made me suddenly feel like maybe I wasn't in control any more.

The intravenous drips commonly attached to the hands or arms of birthing women make a powerful symbolic statement: they are umbilical cords to the hospital. The cord connecting her body to the fluid-filled bottle places the woman in the same relation to the hospital as the baby in her womb is to her. By making her dependent on the institution for her life, the IV conveys to her one of the most profound messages of her initiation experience: in American society, we are all dependent on institutions for our lives. The message is even more compelling in her case, for she is the real giver of life. Society and its institutions cannot exist unless women give birth, yet the birthing woman in the hospital is shown, not that she gives life, but rather that the institution does...

Ritual is marked by repetition and redundancy. For maximum effectiveness, a ritual concentrates on sending one basic set of messages, repeating it over and over again in different forms. Hospital birth takes places in a series of ritual procedures, many of which convey the same message in different forms. The open and exposing hospital gown, the ID bracelet, the intravenous fluid, the bed in which she is placed--all these convey to the laboring woman that she is dependent on the institution.

She is also reminded in myriad ways of the potential defectiveness of her birthing machine. These include periodic and sometimes continuous electronic monitoring of that machine, frequent manual examinations of her cervix to make sure that it is dilating on schedule, and, if it isn't, administration of the synthetic hormone pitocin to speed up labor so that birth can take place within the required 26 hours.(2) All three of these procedures convey the same messages over and over: time is important, you must produce on time, and you cannot do that without technological assistance because your machine is defective. In the technocracy, we supervalue time. It is only fitting that messages about time's importance should be repeatedly conveyed during the births of new social members...

Ritual is marked by repetition and redundancy. For maximum effectiveness, a ritual concentrates on sending one basic set of messages, repeating it over and over again in different forms. Hospital birth takes places in a series of ritual procedures, many of which convey the same message in different forms. The open and exposing hospital gown, the ID bracelet, the intravenous fluid, the bed in which she is placed--all these convey to the laboring woman that she is dependent on the institution.

She is also reminded in myriad ways of the potential defectiveness of her birthing machine. These include periodic and sometimes continuous electronic monitoring of that machine, frequent manual examinations of her cervix to make sure that it is dilating on schedule, and, if it isn't, administration of the synthetic hormone pitocin to speed up labor so that birth can take place within the required 26 hours.(2) All three of these procedures convey the same messages over and over: time is important, you must produce on time, and you cannot do that without technological assistance because your machine is defective. In the technocracy, we supervalue time. It is only fitting that messages about time's importance should be repeatedly conveyed during the births of new social members...

Hospital rituals such as electronic monitoring work to give the laboring woman a sense that society is using the best it has to offer--the full force of its technology--to inevitably ensure that she will have a safe birth.
However, once those "cosmic gears" have been set into motion, there is often no stopping them. The very inevitability of hospital procedures makes them almost antithetical to the possibility of normal, natural birth. A "cascade of intervention" occurs when one obstetric procedure alters the natural birthing process, causing complications, and so inexorably "necessitates" the next procedure, and the next. Many of the women in my study experienced such a "cascade" when they received some form of pain relief, such as an epidural, which slowed their labor. Then pitocin was administered through the IV to speed up the labor, but pitocin very suddenly induced longer and stronger contractions. Unprepared for the additional pain, the woman asked for more pain relief, which ultimately necessitated more pitocin. Pitocin-induced contractions, together with the fact that the mother must lie flat on her back because of the electronic monitor belts strapped around her stomach, can cause the supply of blood and oxygen to the fetus to drop, affecting the fetal heart rate. In response to the "distress" registered on the fetal monitor, an emergency Caesarean is performed...

Consider the visual and kinesthetic images that the laboring woman experiences--herself in bed, in a hospital gown, staring up at an IV pole, bag, and cord, and down at a steel bed and a huge belt encircling her waist. Her entire sensory field conveys one overwhelm-ing message about our culture's deepest values and beliefs: technology is supreme, and the individual is utterly dependent upon it.

Internalizing the technocratic model, women come to accept the notion that the female body is inherently defective. This notion then shapes their perceptions of the labor experience, as exemplified by one woman's story:

It seemed as though my uterus had suddenly tired! When the nurses in attendance noted a contraction building on the recorder, they instructed me to begin pushing, not waiting for the urge to push, so that by the time the urge pervaded, I invariably had no strength remaining but was left gasping and dizzy....I felt suddenly depressed by the fact that labor, which had progressed so uneventfully up to this point, had now become unproductive.

Note that she does not say "The nurses had me pushing too soon," but "My uterus had tired," and labor had "become unproductive." These responses reflect her internalization of the technocratic tenet that when something goes wrong, it is her body's fault...

In spite of tremendous advances in equality for women, the United States is still a patriarchy. It is no cultural accident that 99% of American women give birth in hospitals, where only physicians, most of whom are male, have final authority over the performance of birth rituals--an authority that reinforces the cultural supervaluation of patriarchy for both mothers and their medical attendants.
Nowhere is this reality more visible than in the lithotomy position. Despite years of effort on the part of childbirth activists, including many obstetricians, the majority of American women still give birth lying flat on their backs. This position is physiologically dysfunctional. It compresses major blood vessels, lowering the mother's circulation and thus the baby's oxygen supply. It increases the need for forceps because it both narrows the pelvic outlet and ensures that the baby, who must follow the curve of the birth canal, quite literally will be born heading upward, against gravity.
This lithotomy position completes the process of symbolic inversion that has been in motion ever since the woman was put into that "upside-down" hospital gown. Her normal bodily patterns are turned, quite literally, upside-down--her legs are in the air, her vagina totally exposed. As the ultimate symbolic inversion, it is ritually appropriate that this position be reserved for the peak transformational moments of the initiation experience--the birth itself. The doctor--society's official representative--stands in control not at the mother's head nor at her side, but at her bottom, where the baby's head is beginning to emerge.
Structurally speaking, this puts the woman's vagina where her head should be. Such total inversion is perfectly appropriate from a social perspective, as the technocratic model promises us that eventually we will be able to grow babies in machines--that is, have them with our cultural heads instead of our natural bottoms. In our culture, "up" is good and "down" is bad, so the babes born of science and technology must be delivered "up" toward the positively valued cultural world, instead of down toward the negatively valued natural world. Interactionally, the obstetrician is "up" and the birthing woman is "down," an inversion that speaks eloquently to her of her powerlessness and of the power of society at the supreme moment of her own individual transformation.

The episiotomy performed by the obstetrician just before birth also powerfully enacts the status quo in American society. This procedure, performed on over 90% of first-time mothers as they give birth, expresses the value and importance of one of our technocratic society's most fundamental markers--the straight line. Through episiotomies, physicians can deconstruct the vagina (stretchy, flexible, part-circular and part-formless, feminine, creative, sexual, non-linear), then reconstruct it in accordance with our cultural belief and value system. Doctors are taught (incorrectly) that straight cuts heal faster than the small jagged tears that sometimes occur during birth. They learn that straight cuts will prevent such tears, but in fact, episiotomies often cause severe tearing that would not otherwise occur. These teachings dramatize our Western belief in the superiority of culture over nature. Because it virtually does not exist in nature, the line is most useful in aiding us in our constant conceptual efforts to separate ourselves from nature.

Moreover, since surgery constitutes the ultimate form of manipulation of the human body-machine, it is the most highly valued form of medicine. Routinizing the episiotomy, and increasingly, the Caesarean section, has served both to legitimize and to raise the status of obstetrics as a profession, by ensuring that childbirth will be not a natural but a surgical procedure..."


Occupy Santa Cruz - Bank of America refusing to close account

"Should people who are tired of paying extra fees be allowed to close their bank accounts in protest? One Bank of America official reportedly doesn't think so.

According to Addicting Info, two women involved with the Occupy Santa Cruz movement in California walked into a Bank of America branch earlier this week and attempted to close their bank accounts. In response, the bank manager threatened to lock the doors and call the police on them. Her reasoning? You can't be a customer and a protester at the same time, the manager said.

Central Coast News contacted Bank of America about the incident and received a response from the company:

Central Coast News has contacted Bank of America to get their side of the story. In an email Colleen Haggerty with Bank of America released this statement to Central Coast News. "It is our responsibility to ensure a safe environment for customers to conduct financial transactions. So, due to the disruptive nature of protests lately and the potential for safety or security issues, we do not allow protestors inside of our banking centers. If a customer who is participating in a protest wishes to conduct bank business, including close an account, we ask them to come back when they are not protesting or they may also conduct their bank business at a nearby branch away from protest activities."

Haggerty also said that Bank of Ameica, "respect everyone's ability to exercise their first amendment rights, however we also have to balance safety and business needs for all customers."

According to Central Coast News, "The women said that they would return to Bank of America the next day, sans signs, and close their accounts taking their 'money away from the banking elite and into a local credit union.'"


Bank Of America Branch In California Reportedly Refuses To Allow Protesters To Close Accounts


When they tell you that circumcision prevents HIV and STI's, don't believe them. They are lying.

"...After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.52, 2.26). The odds of HIV infection were 2.6 higher for irregular condom users, 5 times as high for those reporting STI, 6.2 times higher for those reporting anal sex, 2.8-3.2 times higher for those with 2-7+ partners, nearly 3 times higher for Blacks, and 3.5 times as high for men who were single or divorced/separated.

Conclusions: Although there may be other medical or cultural reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U. S. military population..."

U.S. Navy Finds That Circumcision Does Not Prevent HIV or STIs

Saturday, November 26, 2011


Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Childhood Vaccines
Is There a Connection?

"...A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that children diagnosed with asthma (a respiratory ailment not unlike SIDS) were five times more likely than not to have received pertussis vaccine.(1) Another study found that babies die at a rate eight times greater than normal within three days after getting a DPT shot.(2) The three primary doses of DPT are given at two months, four months, and six months. About 85 percent of SIDS cases occur at one through six months, with the peak incidence at age two to four months.

A 1994 study found that children diagnosed with asthma (a respiratory ailment not unlike SIDS) were five times more likely than not to have received pertussis vaccine.(110) Another study found that babies die at a rate eight times greater than normal within three days after getting a DPT shot.(111) The three primary doses of DPT are given at two months, four months, and six months. About 85 percent of SIDS cases occur at one through six months, with the peak incidence at age two to four months.

In a recent scientific study of SIDS, episodes of apnea (cessation of breathing) and hypopnea (abnormally shallow breathing) were measured before and after DPT vaccinations. "Cotwatch" (a precise breathing monitor) was used, and the computer printouts it generated (in integrals of the weighted apnea-hypopnea density -- WAHD) were analyzed. The data clearly shows that vaccination caused an extraordinary increase in episodes where breathing either nearly ceased or stopped completely. These episodes continued for months following vaccinations. Dr. Viera Scheibner, the author of the study, concluded that "vaccination is the single most prevalent and most preventable cause of infant deaths."

"These data show that DPT vaccination may be a generally unrecognised major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunisation may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study." William C. Torch, M.D., Director of Child Neurology, Department of Paediatrics, University of Nevada School of Medicine..."


Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity

Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome...

Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT(diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%,
61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while
vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT ‘‘may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits...

Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination...

nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates."

Table 1. 2009 Infant mortality rates, top 34 nations
Rank Country IMR
1 Singapore 2.31
2 Sweden 2.75
3 Japan 2.79
4 Iceland 3.23
5 France 3.33
6 Finland 3.47
7 Norway 3.58
8 Malta 3.75
9 Andorra 3.76
10 Czech Republic 3.79
11 Germany 3.99
12 Switzerland 4.18
13 Spain 4.21
14 Israel 4.22
15 Liechtenstein 4.25
16 Slovenia 4.25
17 South Korea 4.26
18 Denmark 4.34
19 Austria 4.42
20 Belgium 4.44
21 Luxembourg 4.56
22 Netherlands 4.73
23 Australia 4.75
24 Portugal 4.78
25 United Kingdom 4.85
26 New Zealand 4.92
27 Monaco 5.00
28 Canada 5.04
29 Ireland 5.05
30 Greece 5.16
31 Italy 5.51
32 San Marino 5.53
33 Cuba 5.82
34 United States 6.22



ATTN: NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND!! Please help us to create a NO-FLY ZONE over Long Island and put an END TO CHEMTRAILS OUR SKIES. The federal government has gone completely insane and has been regularly spraying chemicals into our skies -- chemicals that we and our children are inhaling and that are contaminating our air, soil, and water. They must be stopped. Please attend this hearing. We need to pack the house so they know how we've had enough!

Hearing to be held at Riverhead Legislative Auditorium, Evans K Griffing Building, 300 Center Drive, Riverhead, NY 11901, (631) 852- 1700

Please contact your local legislatures and demand their vote to make this proposal law. Please plan on attending the open hearing to show your support for this law. Here is a link to our Suffolk County Legislators and their contact info:

If this proposal becomes law in Suffolk County, LongIsland, it would be the first in the nation. It would be a starting point for others to follow. Eventually, our governments would have to investigate why our trees are dying in record numbers; why our waters contain toxic levels of aluminum, barium and strontium; why 90% of us are vitamin d deficient; why our crops are failing; and where all of this crazy weather is coming from. As weather modification is now traded on the stock exchange and you can buy and sell snow, there are many questions that our officials need to investigate and answer.


5thLong Island Lab Results
WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held on , 2011, a proposed local law entitled, "A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY" now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that said local law be enacted in form as follows: LOCAL LAW NO. -2011, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK A LOCAL LAW TO PROTECT AIR QUALITY IN SUFFOLK COUNTY BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, as follows: Section 1. Legislative Intent. This Legislature hereby finds and determines that Suffolk County is a leader in environmental protection and has several programs to protect soil and groundwater from contamination. This Legislature also finds and determines that air pollution is another environmental issue that can impact the health and safety of County residents and may also contaminate soil and groundwater. This Legislature further finds and determines that concerns have been raised that business and government entities may be discharging polluting chemicals, including barium, sulfur, salts, and aluminum oxide, into the air, which may impact weather and other environmental elements. This Legislature finds that such particulates eventually fall from the atmosphere, exposing the public to these air pollutants and, upon landing, may contaminate soil and water. This Legislature determines that County residents may be exposed to these chemicals while they are in the atmosphere, which can cause respiratory and other health problems. This Legislature also finds that, to protect County residents from potential harm, any person who plans to discharge these chemicals into the airspace over Suffolk County should first file an Environmental Impact Statement with and receive approval from the Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality. Therefore, the purpose of this law is to require any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk to file a complete Environmental Impact Statement with the County prior to taking such action. Section 2. Definitions. As used in this law, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated: “PERSON” shall mean any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock association, or other entity or business of any kind. Section 3. Requirements. Any person who plans to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk must file a completed environmental impact form, as established in Section 4 of this law, with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality and with the Clerk of the Suffolk County Legislature and receive the approval of the Division of Environmental Quality prior to engaging in such discharge. Section 4. Form Established. The Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to develop an environmental impact form to be used by persons wishing to discharge sulfur, barium, salts or aluminum oxide into the airspace above the County of Suffolk. Such form shall require applicants to detail the nature and purpose of their proposed discharge and any potential environmental and/or public health impacts that may result from such discharge. Section 5. Exemption. The requirements set forth in this law shall not apply to any person engaging in aerosol spraying for agricultural or vector control purposes. Section 6. Penalties. A. Any person who violates any provision of this law shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for an initial violation, with a fine of $5,000 for each subsequent violation. B. Any civil penalty may only be assessed by the Commissioner of Health Services following a hearing and opportunity for an alleged violator to be heard. Section 7. Rules and Regulations. The Commissioner of the County Department of Health Services is hereby authorized and empowered to issue and promulgate such rules and regulations as he or she deems necessary to implement and carry out the provisions of this law. Section 8. Applicability. This law shall apply to all actions occurring on or after the effective date of this law. Section 9. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law or the application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this law, or in its application to the person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or circumstance directly involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered. Section 10. SEQRA Determination. This Legislature, being the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lead agency, hereby finds and determines that this law constitutes a Type II action pursuant to Section 617.5(c)(20), (21), and/or (27) of Title 6 of the NEW YORK CODE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (6 NYCRR) and within the meaning of Section 8-0109(2) of the NEW YORK ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW as a promulgation of regulations, rules, policies, procedures, and legislative decisions in connection with continuing agency administration, management and information collection. The Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is hereby directed to circulate any appropriate SEQRA notices of determination of non-applicability or non-significance in accordance with this law. Section 11. Effective Date. This law shall take effect immediately upon filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. DATED: APPROVED BY: _____________________________ County Executive of Suffolk County Date: s:\laws\l-air quality chemtrails

Friday, November 25, 2011


Unwilling Guinea Pigs: Using Foster Care Children for Forced Drug Experiments

"This article was first published in Naturally Good Magazine, issue 1.

In the summer of 2004, Liam Scheff, an independent investigative journalist published the story of Incarnation Children's Center in New York City, where experimental and highly toxic AIDS drugs were forcibly administered to foster children of the State. Originally published in the article, The House That AIDS Built, the story was subsequently carried by The New York Press with the title: Orphans on Trial. Children refusing experimental medications were surgically implanted tubes to allow direct injections of drugs into their stomachs against their will. In November of the same year, the BBC broadcast Guinea Pig Kids, a video of the story. After airing the documentary just once, the BBC abruptly changed its position and distanced itself from the controversial story, due to threats which came from the United States.

"The FDA encourages studies in pediatric patients. Clinical trials involving children and orphans are therefore legal and not unusual."

― GlaxoSmithKline, email to Democracy Now!

In order to gain access to hundreds of HIV infected foster children, federally funded researchers promised in writing to provide independent advocates to safeguard the kids' wellbeing as they tested potent AIDS drugs. The Associated Press discovered that this special protection never materialized in most cases. It is also worth noting that HIV tests are well known for inaccuracy, and false positive tests can be triggered by routine conditions such as flu infections. The research funded by the National Institutes of Health spanned the country. It was most widespread in the 1990's as foster-care agencies sought experimental treatments for their HIV-infected children which were not yet available in the marketplace. The research was conducted in at least seven states: Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas. They involved more than four dozen different studies. The foster children ranged from infants to late teens, according to interviews and government records. Several studies enlisting foster children reported that patients suffered side effects such as rashes, vomiting and dramatic drops in their infection-fighting blood cells. One study reported a "disturbing" higher death rate among children who took higher doses of the drugs.

Supposedly, the federal government provided special protections for child wards in 1983. They required researchers and their oversight boards to appoint independent advocates for any foster child enrolled in a narrow class of studies involving greater-than-minimal risk, and which lacked the promise of direct benefit. Agencies in Illinois and New York attempted to displace their responsibility by requiring that pharmaceutical researchers sign a document agreeing to provide this protection on their behalf ― bypassing the spirit and true meaning of the law, in order to allow the foxes to continue guarding the hen houses. One must wonder just how profitable these partnerships were for the bureaucrats to disregard a law written specifically to address their past behavior. Researchers and foster agencies told The Associated Press that the conductors of AIDS drug trials commonly ignored the requirement to institute impartial child advocates, even though research institutions promised many times in writing to do so.

Illinois officials believe that none of their nearly 200 foster children in AIDS studies received independent monitors. New York City could find records showing 142 (less than a third of the 465 foster children in AIDS drug trials) got such monitors, even though city policy required them.

Remembering 2004: The Foster Care Horrors of New York City

The wicked malfeasance that was discovered in New York City under the leadership of Mayor Giuliani and the financial influence of Merck, BristolMyers Squibb, MicroGeneSys, Biocine, Glaxo Wellcome, and Pfizer has practically disappeared from the sparse media coverage that it once had. It has been easy for the media organizations to sweep the problem under the rug and move on: especially since its pharmaceutical sponsors can be so encouraging. The difficultly in finding information now about the New York City foster care drug experiments that were first reported in 2004 reveals that there has been a full-blown cover-up operation. Alas, the last large media corporation still gutsy enough to carry the archived story is Hustler Magazine, and Hustler still has it viewable online. The staff finds it both a telling and a troubling sign of the times that Hustler Magazine is one of the last bastions of journalist integrity and courage remaining in the United States.

Hustler Magazine reported:

"Children, too sick to move or speak, lie sprawled around a playroom. Some sit in wheelchairs amid younger kids tottering aimlessly, their coordination hindered by severe brain damage. Others are deformed, their limbs twisted. Many of the little ones have tubes surgically implanted to pump milky-white fluid through holes in their stomachs. These wards of a New York City orphanage are human guinea pigs. HIV-positive and some only a few months old, they have been enrolled in toxic experiments without the consent of guardians or relatives. Many of these children were taken forcibly from their homes by decree of a seemingly benevolent municipal agency, the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Most of these drug trials were cosponsored by giant pharmaceutical companies and the National Institute of Health (NIH). In conjunction with the ACS, hospital administrators, doctors and their subordinates helped to carry out the experiments, which apparently led to severe injury, deformation, brain damage and even death for some of the subjects.

"In New York City, more than 23,000 children are either in foster care or independent homes supervised by religious organizations on behalf of the local authorities. Most of these kids are black or Hispanic. Some are born addicted to crack; others are HIV-positive. For more than a decade, the ACS admits, 465 children have been forced to receive dubious experimental cocktails provided by such pharmaceutical firms as Merck, BristolMyers Squibb, MicroGeneSys, Biocine, Glaxo Wellcome and Pfizer.

"There have been allegations that these clinical trials have killed children. What is certain is that most of the experiments were cruel and unnecessary. 'They tested these very highly experimental drugs, Phase 1 and Phase 2,' says Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection. 'Why didn't they provide the children with the current best treatment? That's the question I have. Why did they expose them to risk and pain when they were helpless? Would they have done those experiments with their own children? I doubt it.' In studies conducted under the auspices of the foster-care system, children were administered multiple concoctions simultaneously, at up to eight times the usual doses. No one seemed terribly concerned what effects AZT, Nevirapine and vaccines for herpes and chicken pox would have on the kids. 'We're talking about serious, serious side effects,' says Dr. David Rasnick, a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in AIDS research. 'These children are going to be absolutely miserable… they're going to have cramps and diarrhea, and their joints are going to swell up. They're going to roll around the ground, and you can't touch them.' Rasnick describes some of the drugs administered in the experiments as 'lethal'. For example, Nevirapine can cause severe liver toxicity. Another potential side effect is Steven Johnsons Syndrome, which is characterized by painful flaking of the skin. Government documentation (available at ClinicalTrials.gov) lists some of the experiments carried out on children. One involved a herpes treatment; another gave subjects double doses of a measles vaccine. One trial involved administering cocktails of drugs with side effects that included severe abdominal pain, muscle wastage and organ failure.

"How could this happen in America? Since the 1980s, activists have been pressuring the government to rush new AIDS drugs onto the market. Since then, Liam Scheff maintains, the relationship between the NIH, FDA and drug companies has grown incestuous. Scheff, the investigative reporter who originally broke this story and brought it to the BBC, claims that drug companies were motivated to cosponsor orphan drug studies with the NIH 'to keep old, failed drugs like AZT on the market'."

"When a profitable drug fails in one population", Scheff explains, "its manufacturer will try to find a use for it in another. With AIDS drugs, they've dumped drugs that harmed and even killed adult males into pregnant women and their children. A drug company only has to alter a drug slightly, or simply change its name to be able to claim a new use. They run it through new clinical trials cosponsored by the NIH, a taxpayer-funded government agency. As such, the NIH publishes lots of data and claims it's fighting the war on AIDS, which justifies its growing budget. Conversely, drug companies get to run their old, failed drugs through new trials subsidized by taxpayers. It's a win-win situation. The only losers are orphans. The NIH will partner with a hospital and a government-sponsored foster-care system. Suddenly, they have an endless supply of subjects on which to test sick youngsters with no guardians.

"You would not expect too many parents to volunteer their children for such experiments," says the Alliance for Human Research Protection's, Vera Sharav. "This means that if the researchers want to do the experiments on children, they are going to look for vulnerable children whom they can get. And when you have a city government agency accommodating them, that is the biggest betrayal of those children. They don't have anyone but the city agency that is their guardian on paper. And how can anyone believe that drugs proven devastatingly toxic in adults might benefit infants or children?"

"The drugs being given to the children are toxic ― they're known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders. If the children refuse the drugs, they're held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they're taken to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines. In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after. Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck. This isn't science fiction. This is AIDS research."

This is the standard label for the drug AZT. Notice the skull and bones on the label ― the warning for deadly poisons. This bottle contains only 100 mg. pills, but humans are prescribed between 300 to 1500 mg. per day. These labels are typically removed before the prescriptions are given to patients, in order to prevent the unintended side effects of informed patients.

"When asked by a reporter or a city council person, the doctors will say they're offering the most advanced treatment to these kids", Scheff says. "That's not true. If you review the specific drugs used in the studies, it becomes obvious that that's totally contradictory. The NIH and the FDA are the drug companies. It's unclear anymore where one stops and another begins. The NIH is an organization that works as a liaison between the drug companies and the public they too often pretend to serve. The job of the NIH is to keep drug companies in business, and less and less to serve the public."

Since the late 1990's, children have been used in experiments. If a child refused to take a given medication, he or she was force-fed through a tube surgically inserted into the stomach. Both Incarnation Children's Center and its public-relations firm refused to comment about activities within the facility.

Jacklyn Hoerger was a pediatric nurse at Incarnation for more than five years. She says doctors there insist that any of the children's pain or suffering has nothing to do with the experimental drugs. "At the time, it did not occur to me that anything was wrong," Hoerger recalls. "If they were vomiting, if they lost their ability to walk, if they were having diarrhea, if they were dying, then all of this was because of their HIV infection." Hoerger changed her mind after she and her husband had adopted two little girls from the home. Despite receiving the utmost care and attention, their conditions continued to deteriorate. "I gave them good-quality food," Hoerger says, "and the best private schooling they could get, occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy and tutoring, the best psychologist that I could find on all levels, and I just didn't seem to be making any headway. The only thing that was left was the medication that I was giving them."

Hoerger took the children off the drug regime and, almost immediately, their health and happiness visibly improved. For the first time they were able to go swimming and cycling. Both the kids' social worker and mental health visitor were delighted. But when the ACS (New York City's Administration for Children's Services) discovered that their mother had stopped administering the girls' the drugs, there was a knock on the door. "It was a Saturday morning", Hoerger recalled, "and they had come a few times unannounced. So when I saw them at the door, I invited them in, and they said that this wasn't a happy visit. And at that point they told me that they were taking the children away. I was in shock. I couldn't believe it."

For refusing to administer drugs, Jacklyn Hoerger lost the children and was convicted of child abuse. Many years later, she still has no idea what happened to the girls she grew to love. According to records, more than 50 children in 13 experiments from Incarnation Children’s Center were offered up for experiments. An unknown number of others came from foster homes and other children's facilities under the supervision of the ACS, which was granted far-reaching powers in the 1990's by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. After a particularly horrific child abuse case, literally thousands of children were rounded up and placed into foster care. "They're essentially out of control", expressed David Lansner, a family lawyer in New York. "I've had many ACS case workers tell me, 'We're ACS. We can do whatever we want.' And they usually get away with it." Inexplicably in 2002, the trials at Incarnation Children's Center suddenly stopped, but documentation shows that similar experiments continue at up to six other locations in New York City's metropolitan area.

The Most Shocking Revelation: The Truth About AIDS Drugs

The remainder of this article is a report copied verbatim from Nobel Prize winner, Doctor J. Michael Bestler, M.D. about the horrors and hysteria unleashed upon the population by the medical establishment in the name of AIDS.

"People like to find a cause for events, preferably a singular cause. And preferably with a little bit of the strange and exotic. HIV fits this perfectly. I just began to doubt the HIV hypothesis about 15 years ago in the infancy of the AIDS hysteria, and then I encountered the work of Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cellular biology at the University of California at Berkeley. My doubts coalesced into a conviction, AIDS is not the result of HIV infection. So here goes, and no one is going to like this, but when Duesberg and I share the Nobel Prize in Medicine, remember I told you so. AIDS results from unhealthy circumstances over a prolonged period of time, poor hygiene, poor physical habits, poor diet, chronic use of drugs, or a weird life style combining all of these factors as is found in the active homosexual life.

"We have known for many years the active homosexual has a shortened life span. Blood samples taken from these men while living or at autopsy reveal large volumes of HIV, but HIV did not cause AIDS, which is the name we have given to this pattern of disease and death.

"But in the 1980's and 1990's, when investigators found the HIV, they proudly proclaimed the discovery of the cause of AIDS. It was HIV. Eureka! They were terribly wrong. The cause of AIDS was and is physical debilitation brought on by chosen life style or more commonly, as in Africa, brought on by malnutrition and neglect. HIV is a spectator virus, an opportunistic virus taking advantage of an already weakened immune system. It lives in many of us who are doing just fine. But health investigators under the spur of public concern falsely identified HIV as a killer virus and they began the chemical assault on this innocent bug. Most of the drugs used in their initial assaults were murderous drugs we used in the early 60's to treat some cancers. We had stopped using them because they were killing more patients than the cancers were, but we reactivated these killer drugs to attack HIV, and the death rate from AIDS shot skywards, but it wasn't the virus that was killing, but rather these enormously lethal drugs we were pouring into these already severely weakened patients.

"Now in desperation, health officials employed even more lethal drugs, and the death rate climbed again. Panic. It's an epidemic! Do we remember those hysterical claims that soon almost all of us would be struck by AIDS? However, it was an epidemic caused not by HIV, but by deadly poisons posing as medicines. With a little more time researchers developed drugs not quite so toxic, and the death rate from AIDS leveled off, and began to even drop. These facts are ignored, or hotly denied because an entire industry and medical specialty has grown-up directed to the treatment of AIDS, supposedly caused by HIV. HIV was just a poor benign virus just trying to make a living when suddenly all hell broke loose. Crazy-eyed medical investigators and the happily collaborating drug companies are making a handsome living in pursuit and annihilation of HIV. But HIV is tough and it will be around long after this huge industry has gone the way of the Stanley Steamer."


This article is a great example of progress made from standing on the shoulders of giants. Instead of rewriting their work, this article is primarily a condensed volume of dozens of other articles from the past. There are dozens of people who have worked for years to expose the current state of affairs, about how criminal behavior is being conducted in stealth by the pharmaceutical players right below our noses, and with the direct assistance of those who we entrust to make certain that such events do not occur. The behavior of the medical community has literally entailed bloody murder, and it has been that way for a very long time. With this article, we attempted to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in the trenches with those heroes who have worked tirelessly to publish this information many times before, often at great personal costs, such as the retributive termination of careers. We cannot possibly thank them all here, but we would like to.

In particular, we give special thanks to the following reporters and agencies:

Brock L. Eide and Fernette F. Eide - The New Atlantis
Dr. J. Michael Bestler
Liam Scheff
Vera Hassner Sharav
Bruce E. Levine
John W. Whitehead
Dr. Julian Whitaker
Ann Blake Tracy - International Coalition for Drug Awareness
Evelyn Pringle - onlinejournal.com
The Associated Press"


Secret Sterilizing Ingredients In Many Vaccines

"What do Polysorbate 80 and Octoxynol 10 have in common? They both cause infertility and they are both in many vaccines.

According to the California Teratogen Information Service (CTIS) Pregnancy Health Information Line, there are many factors that can cause a man to be infertile and as around half of all infertility cases result from the man, it is important to properly study the causes.

Previous studies have found that radiation and electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and computers have been linked to infertility or sub-fertility as well as chemicals, including heavy metals and solvents, heat and pressure (such as hot baths and tight underwear), environmental pollution, cigarette smoking and sexually transmitted diseases.

But in their summary of different causes of infertility, they forgot one: vaccines.
Fertility has been declining rapidly since the 1950s in all countries of the world and the start of the change coincided with the introduction of the first mass vaccination programs. For instance, in the UK in 1947, a mass DPT vaccine campaign was initiated and in 1958, the first polio and diphtheria vaccines were brought in on a mass scale for all people under 15 years old.

Spermicide in Vaccines

Vaccines contain many ingredients that are potentially damaging to fertility including detergents like triton X-100, also known as octoxynol 10 which is a known spermicide and has been used in experiments to "strip" sperm so that they are no longer capable of fertilizing an egg. In a 1977 study in the Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, triton X-100 was listed in a table of "most potent spermicides" that would produce 100% stripping of human sperm and the dosages needed for such an effect.

Octoxynol 10 (Triton X-100) is contained in vaccines. The data sheet for Fluarix vaccine says:

"FLUARIX (influenza virus vaccine) does not contain thimerosal. Each 0.5-mL dose also contains octoxynol-10 (TRITON X-100) and polysorbate 80 (Tween 80)."

Octoxynol 9 (or 10) typically contain traces of the toxins ethylene oxide, dioxane, C9 phenols, or glycol ether.

Detergents and emulsifiers promote tumors and cause cells to leak or explode by weakening their walls, with no mechanism for regulating destructive activity. Detergents are used extensively in cell research precisely because of their ability to break cells open for further analysis. This catastrophically mimics the membrane attack complex (MAC).

It is also in other flu vaccines such as pandemrix and vaxigrip vaccines.

Polysorbate 80 Causes Infertility

Another ingredient that is problematic is polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80) that is in numerous vaccines including the Pediacel five-in-one vaccine given to infants and the gardasil HPV vaccine. Polysorbate 80 is a known sterility causing agent in rats. It caused changes to the vagina and womb, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles and this impaired the rats' ability to reproduce.

Interestingly enough it is also an emulsifier used in popular brands of ice cream.
Some medical professionals argue that it has only been found to cause infertility in rats, not humans, but the Depo-Provera contraceptive shot also contains polysorbate 80 and it has been added to experimental animal contraceptive injections as one of the ideal sterilizing ingredients.

Baby female rats who were injected with polysorbate 80 at days 4-7 after birth had caused changes to the vagina and womb lining, hormonal changes, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is Polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80). As it is a preferred ingredient, scientists are obviously aware of its ability to cause infertility.

Gulf War Syndrome Victims Infertile

Squalene (shark liver oil) is used in the H1N1, HPV and anthrax vaccines, as well as others, as an adjuvant to make the recipient produce more antibodies and also to spread out the vaccine so they can make more of it for less money.
It has been implicated in the devastating immune dysfunctions of the soldiers who suffered from Gulf War Syndrome, many of whom returned from the Gulf with infertility problems. Noreen Maconochie, Rebecca Simmons and colleagues at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine did a postal survey and found that 2.5% of men who had been to the Gulf failed to get their wives pregnant, compared 1.7% of men who hadn't been to the Gulf. In addition, there were another 3.4% whose wives had miscarried. Soldiers in America were so worried about the military vaccination programme making them infertile that they were freezing their sperm before they had any vaccines.

Polysorbate 80 and Squalene Together are Ideal Sterilizing Agents

Far from being mere anecdotal reports, scientists are aware that an ideal sterilizing recipe is polysorbate 80 and squalene oil together, as they demonstrated in this patent for an animal contraceptive vaccine:

"In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80."

This is exactly what some vaccines contain. In fact, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System lists 25 pages of teenage girls and women who had miscarriages after being injected with Gardasil when pregnant, and that is just for one type of vaccine.

So if you're considering having a vaccine or giving your child one, don't have any if you intend to get pregnant within three months of the vaccine and avoid any vaccines that contain polysorbate 80, octoxynol 10 (Triton X-100) or squalene (known as adjuvant AS04)."


"Mission: The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation is dedicated to empowering women, specifically in the area of childbirth and pregnancy. We are dedicated to saving the lives of those giving life to others.

The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation is presently focusing on the issues of informed consent, the off-label use of drugs, and maternal mortality.

Dedication: The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation dedicates this site to ALL mothers and children who have been damaged, injured, or lost their lives due to medical interventions and drugs given during childbirth – without full knowledge of what they needed to know before these interventions were used or given to them. Tatia.org stands firmly on the shoulders of Tatia Malika Oden French and Zorah Allie Mae French.

History: In Dec. 2001, Tatia Oden French entered a well-known and well-respected hospital to deliver her first child. She was 32 years old, in perfect health, and looking forward to a natural childbirth, without any interventions or drugs. There were no problems during the pregnancy. According to her doctor's calculations, she was a little under 2 weeks overdue. She was given the drug Cytotec to induce her labor. Cytotec, also known as Misoprostol, is a drug manufactured to treat ulcers. It is NOT approved by the FDA, or the drug company, to induce labor. Ten hours after being administered Cytotec, Tatia suffered hyper-stimulation of her uterus, an amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) was released, an emergency C-Section was performed because the baby was also in distress. Both Tatia and her baby Zorah died in the operating room. The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation, a non-profit corporation, was formed in March 2003 to give ALL women of childbearing age complete information concerning medical interventions and drugs which are administered during childbirth. We do this hoping that women may then be able to make FULLY informed decisions regarding the birth of their children."

The Tatia Oden French Memorial Foundation