Δημοφιλείς αναρτήσεις

Σάββατο 23 Μαρτίου 2013

GMO as a weapon of Bio-warfare?


Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don't









One thing Microsoft founder Bill Gates can't be accused of is sloth. He was already
programming at 14, founded Microsoft at age 20 while still a student at Harvard. By
1995 he had been listed by Forbes as the world's richest man from being the largest
shareholder in his Microsoft, a company which his relentless drive built into a de
facto monopoly in software systems for personal computers.








In 2006 when most people in such a situation might think of retiring to a quiet
Pacific island, Bill Gates decided to devote his energies to his Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, the world's largest 'transparent' private foundation as it says,
with a whopping $34.6 billion endowment and a legal necessity to spend $1.5 billion
a year on charitable projects around the world to maintain its tax free charitable
status. A gift from friend and business associate, mega-investor Warren Buffett in
2006, of some $30 billion worth of shares in Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway put the
Gates' foundation into the league where it spends almost the amount of the entire
annual budget of the United Nations' World Health Organization.


So when Bill Gates decides through the Gates Foundation to invest some $30 million
of their hard earned money in a project, it is worth looking at.


No project is more interesting at the moment than a curious project in one of the
world's most remote spots, Svalbard. Bill Gates is investing millions in a seed bank
on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean, some 1,100 kilometers from the North Pole.
Svalbard is a barren piece of rock claimed by Norway and ceded in 1925 by
international treaty (see map).




On this God-forsaken island Bill Gates is investing tens of his millions along with
the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation and the
Government of Norway, among others, in what is called the 'doomsday seed bank.'
Officially the project is named the Svalbard Global Seed Vault on the Norwegian
island of Spitsbergen, part of the Svalbard island group.


The seed bank is being built inside a mountain on Spitsbergen Island near the small
village of Longyearbyen. It's almost ready for 'business' according to their
releases. The bank will have dual blast-proof doors with motion sensors, two
airlocks, and walls of steel-reinforced concrete one meter thick. It will contain up
to three million different varieties of seeds from the entire world, 'so that crop
diversity can be conserved for the future,' according to the Norwegian government.
Seeds will be specially wrapped to exclude moisture. There will be no full-time
staff, but the vault's relative inaccessibility will facilitate monitoring any
possible human activity.


Did we miss something here? Their press release stated, 'so that crop diversity can
be conserved for the future.' What future do the seed bank's sponsors foresee, that
would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are
already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?


Anytime Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto and Syngenta get together
on a common project, it's worth digging a bit deeper behind the rocks on
Spitsbergen. When we do we find some fascinating things.


The first notable point is who is sponsoring the doomsday seed vault. Here joining
the Norwegians are, as noted, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; the US
agribusiness giant DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, one of the world's largest owners of
patented genetically-modified (GMO) plant seeds and related agrichemicals; Syngenta,
the Swiss-based major GMO seed and agrichemicals company through its Syngenta
Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation, the private group who created the "gene
revolution with over $100 million of seed money since the 1970's; CGIAR, the global
network created by the Rockefeller Foundation to promote its ideal of genetic purity
through agriculture change.


CGIAR and The Project'




As I detailed in the book, Seeds of Destruction1, in 1960 the Rockefeller
Foundation, John D. Rockefeller III's Agriculture Development Council and the Ford
Foundation joined forces to create the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
in Los Baños, the Philippines. By 1971, the Rockefeller Foundation's IRRI, along
with their Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center and two
other Rockefeller and Ford Foundation-created international research centers, the
IITA for tropical agriculture, Nigeria, and IRRI for rice, Philippines, combined to
form a global Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR).




Maurice Strong (left) with Conference President Ingemund Bengtsson at the closing of
the Stockholm Conference on 16 June 1972.


CGIAR was shaped at a series of private conferences held at the Rockefeller
Foundation's conference center in Bellagio, Italy. Key participants at the Bellagio
talks were the Rockefeller Foundation's George Harrar, Ford Foundation's Forrest
Hill, Robert McNamara of the World Bank and Maurice Strong, the Rockefeller family's
international environmental organizer, who, as a Rockefeller Foundation Trustee,
organized the UN Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It was part of the foundation's
decades long focus to turn science to the service of eugenics, a hideous version of
racial purity, what has been called The Project.


To ensure maximum impact, CGIAR drew in the United Nations' Food and Agriculture
Organization, the UN Development Program and the World Bank. Thus, through a
carefully-planned leverage of its initial funds, the Rockefeller Foundation by the
beginning of the 1970's was in a position to shape global agriculture policy. And
shape it did.


Financed by generous Rockefeller and Ford Foundation study grants, CGIAR saw to it
that leading Third World agriculture scientists and agronomists were brought to the
US to 'master' the concepts of modern agribusiness production, in order to carry it
back to their homeland. In the process they created an invaluable network of
influence for US agribusiness promotion in those countries, most especially
promotion of the GMO 'Gene Revolution' in developing countries, all in the name of
science and efficient, free market agriculture.


Genetically engineering a master race?


Now the Svalbard Seed Bank begins to become interesting. But it gets better. 'The
Project' I referred to is the project of the Rockefeller Foundation and powerful
financial interests since the 1920's to use eugenics, later renamed genetics, to
justify creation of a genetically-engineered Master Race. Hitler and the Nazis
called it the Ayran Master Race.


The eugenics of Hitler were financed to a major extent by the same Rockefeller
Foundation which today is building a doomsday seed vault to preserve samples of
every seed on our planet. Now this is getting really intriguing. The same
Rockefeller Foundation created the pseudo-science discipline of molecular biology in
their relentless pursuit of reducing human life down to the 'defining gene sequence'
which, they hoped, could then be modified in order to change human traits at will.
Hitler's eugenics scientists, many of whom were quietly brought to the United States
after the War to continue their biological eugenics research, laid much of the
groundwork of genetic engineering of various life forms, much of it supported openly
until well into the Third Reich by Rockefeller Foundation generous grants.2


The same Rockefeller Foundation created the so-called Green Revolution, out of a
trip to Mexico in 1946 by Nelson Rockefeller and former New Deal Secretary of
Agriculture and founder of the Pioneer Hi-Bred Seed Company, Henry Wallace.


The Green Revolution purported to solve the world hunger problem to a major degree
in Mexico, India and other select countries where Rockefeller worked. Rockefeller
Foundation agronomist, Norman Borlaug, won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work, hardly
something to boast about with the likes of Henry Kissinger sharing the same.


In reality, as it years later emerged, the Green Revolution was a brilliant
Rockefeller family scheme to develop a globalised agribusiness which they then could
monopolize just as they had done in the world oil industry beginning a half century
before. As Henry Kissinger declared in the 1970's, 'If you control the oil you
control the country; if you control food, you control the population.'


Agribusiness and the Rockefeller Green Revolution went hand-in-hand. They were part
of a grand strategy which included Rockefeller Foundation financing of research for
the development of genetic engineering of plants and animals a few years later.


John H. Davis had been Assistant Agriculture Secretary under President Dwight
Eisenhower in the early 1950's. He left Washington in 1955 and went to the Harvard
Graduate School of Business, an unusual place for an agriculture expert in those
days. He had a clear strategy. In 1956, Davis wrote an article in the Harvard
Business Review in which he declared that "the only way to solve the so-called farm
problem once and for all, and avoid cumbersome government programs, is to progress
from agriculture to agribusiness." He knew precisely what he had in mind, though few
others had a clue back then--- a revolution in agriculture production that would
concentrate control of the food chain in corporate multinational hands, away from
the traditional family farmer. 3


A crucial aspect driving the interest of the Rockefeller Foundation and US
agribusiness companies was the fact that the Green Revolution was based on
proliferation of new hybrid seeds in developing markets. One vital aspect of hybrid
seeds was their lack of reproductive capacity. Hybrids had a built in protection
against multiplication. Unlike normal open pollinated species whose seed gave yields
similar to its parents, the yield of the seed borne by hybrid plants was
significantly lower than that of the first generation.


That declining yield characteristic of hybrids meant farmers must normally buy seed
every year in order to obtain high yields. Moreover, the lower yield of the second
generation eliminated the trade in seed that was often done by seed producers
without the breeder's authorization. It prevented the redistribution of the
commercial crop seed by middlemen. If the large multinational seed


companies were able to control the parental seed lines in house, no competitor or
farmer would be able to produce the hybrid. The global concentration of hybrid seed
patents into a handful of giant seed companies, led by DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred and
Monsanto's Dekalb laid the ground for the later GMO seed revolution. 4


In effect, the introduction of modern American agricultural technology, chemical
fertilizers and commercial hybrid seeds all made local farmers in developing
countries, particularly the larger more established ones, dependent on foreign,
mostly US agribusiness and petro-chemical company inputs. It was a first step in
what was to be a decades-long, carefully planned process.


Under the Green Revolution Agribusiness was making major inroads into markets which
were previously of limited access to US exporters. The trend was later dubbed
"market-oriented agriculture." In reality it was agribusiness-controlled
agriculture.


Through the Green Revolution, the Rockefeller Foundation and later Ford Foundation
worked hand-in-hand shaping and supporting the foreign policy goals of the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) and of the CIA.


One major effect of the Green Revolution was to depopulate the countryside of
peasants who were forced to flee into shantytown slums around the cities in
desperate search for work. That was no accident; it was part of the plan to create
cheap labor pools for forthcoming US multinational manufactures, the 'globalization'
of recent years.


When the self-promotion around the Green Revolution died down, the results were
quite different from what had been promised. Problems had arisen from indiscriminate
use of the new chemical pesticides, often with serious health consequences. The
mono-culture cultivation of new hybrid seed varieties decreased soil fertility and
yields over time. The first results were impressive: double or even triple yields
for some crops such as wheat and later corn in Mexico. That soon faded.


The Green Revolution was typically accompanied by large irrigation projects which
often included World Bank loans to construct huge new dams, and flood previously
settled areas and fertile farmland in the process. Also, super-wheat produced
greater yields by saturating the soil with huge amounts of fertilizer per acre, the
fertilizer being the product of nitrates and petroleum, commodities controlled by
the Rockefeller-dominated Seven Sisters major oil companies.


Huge quantities of herbicides and pesticides were also used, creating additional
markets for the oil and chemical giants. As one analyst put it, in effect, the Green
Revolution was merely a chemical revolution. At no point could developing nations
pay for the huge amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They would get the
credit courtesy of the World Bank and special loans by Chase Bank and other large
New York banks, backed by US Government guarantees.


Applied in a large number of developing countries, those loans went mostly to the
large landowners. For the smaller peasants the situation worked differently. Small
peasant farmers could not afford the chemical and other modern inputs and had to
borrow money.


Initially various government programs tried to provide some loans to farmers so that
they could purchase seeds and fertilizers. Farmers who could not participate in this
kind of program had to borrow from the private sector. Because of the exorbitant
interest rates for informal loans, many small farmers did not even get the benefits
of the initial higher yields. After harvest, they had to sell most if not all of
their produce to pay off loans and interest. They became dependent on money-lenders
and traders and often lost their land. Even with soft loans from government
agencies, growing subsistence crops gave way to the production of cash crops.5


Since decades the same interests including the Rockefeller Foundation which backed
the initial Green Revolution, have worked to promote a second 'Gene Revolution' as
Rockefeller Foundation President Gordon Conway termed it several years ago, the
spread of industrial agriculture and commercial inputs including GMO patented seeds.


Gates, Rockefeller and a Green Revolution in Africa


With the true background of the 1950's Rockefeller Foundation Green Revolution clear
in mind, it becomes especially curious that the same Rockefeller Foundation along
with the Gates Foundation which are now investing millions of dollars in preserving
every seed against a possible "doomsday" scenario are also investing millions in a
project called The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa.


AGRA, as it calls itself, is an alliance again with the same Rockefeller Foundation
which created the "Gene Revolution.' A look at the AGRA Board of Directors confirms
this.


It includes none other than former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as chairman. In
his acceptance speech in a World Economic Forum event in Cape Town South Africa in
June 2007, Kofi Annan stated, 'I accept this challenge with gratitude to the
Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and all others who
support our African campaign.'


In addition the AGRA board numbers a South African, Strive Masiyiwa who is a Trustee
of the Rockefeller Foundation. It includes Sylvia M. Mathews of the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation; Mamphela Ramphele, former Managing Director of the World Bank
(2000 - 2006); Rajiv J. Shah of the Gates Foundation; Nadya K. Shmavonian of the
Rockefeller Foundation; Roy Steiner of the Gates Foundation. In addition, an
Alliance for AGRA includes Gary Toenniessen the Managing Director of the Rockefeller
Foundation and Akinwumi Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation.


To fill out the lineup, the Programmes for AGRA includes Peter Matlon, Managing
Director, Rockefeller Foundation; Joseph De Vries, Director of the Programme for
Africa's Seed Systems and Associate Director, Rockefeller foundation; Akinwumi
Adesina, Associate Director, Rockefeller Foundation. Like the old failed Green
Revolution in India and Mexico, the new Africa Green Revolution is clearly a high
priority of the Rockefeller Foundation.


While to date they are keeping a low profile, Monsanto and the major GMO
agribusiness giants are believed at the heart of using Kofi Annan's AGRA to spread
their patented GMO seeds across Africa under the deceptive label, 'bio-technology,'
the new euphemism for genetically engineered patented seeds. To date South Africa is
the only African country permitting legal planting of GMO crops. In 2003 Burkina
Faso authorized GMO trials. In 2005 Kofi Annan's Ghana drafted bio-safety
legislation and key officials expressed their intentions to pursue research into GMO
crops.


Africa is the next target in the US-government campaign to spread GMO worldwide. Its
rich soils make it an ideal candidate. Not surprisingly many African governments
suspect the worst from the GMO sponsors as a multitude of genetic engineering and
biosafety projects have been initiated in Africa, with the aim of introducing GMOs
into Africa's agricultural systems. These include sponsorships offered by the US
government to train African scientists in genetic engineering in the US, biosafety
projects funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
and the World Bank; GMO research involving African indigenous food crops.


The Rockefeller Foundation has been working for years to promote, largely without
success, projects to introduce GMOs into the fields of Africa. They have backed
research that supports the applicability of GMO cotton in the Makhathini Flats in
South Africa.


Monsanto, who has a strong foothold in South Africa's seed industry, both GMO and
hybrid, has conceived of an ingenious smallholders' programme known as the 'Seeds of
Hope' Campaign, which is introducing a green revolution package to small scale poor
farmers, followed, of course, by Monsanto's patented GMO seeds. 6


Syngenta AG of Switzerland, one of the 'Four Horsemen of the GMO Apocalypse' is
pouring millions of dollars into a new greenhouse facility in Nairobi, to develop
GMO insect resistant maize. Syngenta is a part of CGIAR as well.7


Move on to Svalbard


Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller
foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and
soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in
every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture
industrialized agribusiness is introduced? At the same time they invest tens of
millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday
vault near the remote Arctic Circle 'so that crop diversity can be conserved for the
future' to restate their official release?


It is no accident that the Rockefeller and Gates foundations are teaming up to push
a GMO-style Green Revolution in Africa at the same time they are quietly financing
the 'doomsday seed vault' on Svalbard. The GMO agribusiness giants are up to their
ears in the Svalbard project.


Indeed, the entire Svalbard enterprise and the people involved call up the worst
catastrophe images of the Michael Crichton bestseller, Andromeda Strain, a sci-fi
thriller where a deadly disease of extraterrestrial origin causes rapid, fatal
clotting of the blood threatening the entire human species. In Svalbard, the future
world's most secure seed repository will be guarded by the policemen of the GMO
Green Revolution--the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, Syngenta, DuPont and CGIAR.


The Svalbard project will be run by an organization called the Global Crop Diversity
Trust (GCDT). Who are they to hold such an awesome trust over the planet's entire
seed varieties? The GCDT was founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant
Genetic Research Institute), an offshoot of the CGIAR.


The Global Crop Diversity Trust is based in Rome. Its Board is chaired by Margaret
Catley-Carlson a Canadian also on the advisory board of Group Suez Lyonnaise des
Eaux, one of the world's largest private water companies. Catley-Carlson was also
president until 1998 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller's
population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller
family's eugenics program under the cover of promoting "family planning," birth
control devices, sterilization and "population control" in developing countries.


Other GCDT board members include former Bank of America executive presently head of
the Hollywood DreamWorks Animation, Lewis Coleman. Coleman is also the lead Board
Director of Northrup Grumman Corporation, one of America's largest military industry
Pentagon contractors.


Jorio Dauster (Brazil) is also Board Chairman of Brasil Ecodiesel. He is a former
Ambassador of Brazil to the European Union, and Chief Negotiator of Brazil's foreign
debt for the Ministry of Finance. Dauster has also served as President of the
Brazilian Coffee Institute and as Coordinator of the Project for the Modernization
of Brazil's Patent System, which involves legalizing patents on seeds which are
genetically modified, something until recently forbidden by Brazil's laws.


Cary Fowler is the Trust's Executive Director. Fowler was Professor and Director of
Research in the Department for International Environment & Development Studies at
the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. He was also a Senior Advisor to the
Director General of Bioversity International. There he represented the Future
Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) in negotiations on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources. In
the 1990s, he headed the International Program on Plant Genetic Resources at the
FAO. He drafted and supervised negotiations of FAO's Global Plan of Action for Plant
Genetic Resources, adopted by 150 countries in 1996. He is a past-member of the
National Plant Genetic Resources Board of the US and the Board of Trustees of the
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico, another Rockefeller
Foundation and CGIAR project.


GCDT board member Dr. Mangala Rai of India is the Secretary of India's Department of
Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), and Director General of the Indian
Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). He is also a Board Member of the
Rockefeller Foundation's International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which
promoted the world's first major GMO experiment, the much-hyped 'Golden Rice' which
proved a failure. Rai has served as Board Member for CIMMYT (International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center), and a Member of the Executive Council of the CGIAR.


Global Crop Diversity Trust Donors or financial angels include as well, in the words
of the Humphrey Bogart Casablanca classic, 'all the usual suspects.' As well as the
Rockefeller and Gates Foundations, the Donors include GMO giants DuPont-Pioneer
Hi-Bred, Syngenta of Basle Switzerland, CGIAR and the State Department's
energetically pro-GMO agency for development aid, USAID. Indeed it seems we have the
GMO and population reduction foxes guarding the hen-house of mankind, the global
seed diversity store in Svalbard. 8


Why now Svalbard?


We can legitimately ask why Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation along with the
major genetic engineering agribusiness giants such as DuPont and Syngenta, along
with CGIAR are building the Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic.


Who uses such a seed bank in the first place? Plant breeders and researchers are the
major users of gene banks. Today's largest plant breeders are Monsanto, DuPont,
Syngenta and Dow Chemical, the global plant-patenting GMO giants. Since early in
2007 Monsanto holds world patent rights together with the United States Government
for plant so-called 'Terminator' or Genetic Use Restriction Technology (GURT).
Terminator is an ominous technology by which a patented commercial seed commits
'suicide' after one harvest. Control by private seed companies is total. Such
control and power over the food chain has never before in the history of mankind
existed.


This clever genetically engineered terminator trait forces farmers to return every
year to Monsanto or other GMO seed suppliers to get new seeds for rice, soybeans,
corn, wheat whatever major crops they need to feed their population. If broadly
introduced around the world, it could within perhaps a decade or so make the world's
majority of food producers new feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed
companies such as Monsanto or DuPont or Dow Chemical.


That, of course, could also open the door to have those private companies, perhaps
under orders from their host government, Washington, deny seeds to one or another
developing country whose politics happened to go against Washington's. Those who say
'It can't happen here' should look more closely at current global events. The mere
existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based
agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their
harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.


These private companies, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow Chemical hardly have an unsullied
record in terms of stewardship of human life. They developed and proliferated such
innovations as dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange. They covered up for decades clear
evidence of carcinogenic and other severe human health consequences of use of the
toxic chemicals. They have buried serious scientific reports that the world's most
widespread herbicide, glyphosate, the essential ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide that is tied to purchase of most Monsanto genetically engineered seeds, is
toxic when it seeps into drinking water.9 Denmark banned glyphosate in 2003 when it
confirmed it has contaminated the country's groundwater.10


The diversity stored in seed gene banks is the raw material for plant breeding and
for a great deal of basic biological research. Several hundred thousand samples are
distributed annually for such purposes. The UN's FAO lists some 1400 seed banks
around the world, the largest being held by the United States Government. Other
large banks are held by China, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea, Germany and Canada
in descending order of size. In addition, CGIAR operates a chain of seed banks in
select centers around the world.


CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread
their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks
from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all these present seed banks hold more
than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are
'distinct.' Svalbard's Doomsday Vault will have a capacity to house four and a half
million different seeds.





Now we come to the heart of the danger and the potential for misuse inherent in the
Svalbard project of Bill Gates and the Rockefeller foundation. Can the development
of patented seeds for most of the world's major sustenance crops such as rice, corn,
wheat, and feed grains such as soybeans ultimately be used in a horrible form of
biological warfare?


The explicit aim of the eugenics lobby funded by wealthy elite families such as
Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman and others since the 1920's, has embodied what they
termed 'negative eugenics,' the systematic killing off of undesired bloodlines.
Margaret Sanger, a rapid eugenicist, the founder of Planned Parenthood International
and an intimate of the Rockefeller family, created something called The Negro
Project in 1939, based in Harlem, which as she confided in a letter to a friend, was
all about the fact that, as she put it, 'we want to exterminate the Negro
population.' 11


A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of
genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men
who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its
technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday
Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company.
Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with
research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite
worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology,
now held by Monsanto.


In the 1990's the UN's World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate
millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15
and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping
on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are
presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.


Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay
organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed
that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age
contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when
combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman
incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.


It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller's
Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States' National
Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to
develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition,
the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41
million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine. 12


Is it a coincidence that these same organizations, from Norway to the Rockefeller
Foundation to the World Bank are also involved in the Svalbard seed bank project?
According to Prof. Francis Boyle who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism
Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, the Pentagon is 'now gearing up to fight and
win biological warfare' as part of two Bush national strategy directives adopted, he
notes, 'without public knowledge and review' in 2002. Boyle adds that in 2001-2004
alone the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related
work, a staggering sum.


Rutgers University biologist Richard Ebright estimates that over 300 scientific
institutions and some 12,000 individuals in the USA today have access to pathogens
suitable for biowarfare. Alone there are 497 US Government NIH grants for research
into infectious diseases with biowarfare potential. Of course this is being
justified under the rubric of defending against possible terror attack as so much is
today.


Many of the US Government dollars spent on biowarfare research involve genetic
engineering. MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the 'growing bio-terror
programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population.' King adds,
'while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive
and offensive programs overlap almost completely.' 13


Time will tell whether, God Forbid, the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Bank of Bill Gates
and the Rockefeller Foundation is part of another Final Solution, this involving the
extinction of the Late, Great Planet Earth.






Notes
1 F. William Engdahl, Seeds of Destruction, Montreal, (Global Research, 2007).


2 Ibid, pp.72-90.


3 John H. Davis, Harvard Business Review, 1956, cited in Geoffrey Lawrence,
Agribusiness, Capitalism and the Countryside, Pluto Press, Sydney, 1987. See also
Harvard Business School, The Evolution of an Industry and a Seminar: Agribusiness
Seminar, http://www.exed.hbs.edu/programs/agb/seminar.html.


4 Engdahl, op cit., p. 130.


5 Ibid. P. 123-30.


6 Myriam Mayet, The New Green Revolution in Africa: Trojan Horse for GMOs?, May,
2007, African Centre for Biosafety, www.biosafetyafrica.net.


7 ETC Group, Green Revolution 2.0 for Africa?, Communique Issue #94, March/April 2007.


8 Global Crop Diversity Trust website, in http://www.croptrust.org/main/donors.php.


9 Engdahl, op. cit., pp.227-236.


10 Anders Legarth Smith, Denmark Bans Glyphosates, the Active Ingredient in Roundup,
Politiken, September 15, 2003, in organic.com.au/news/2003.09.15.


11 Tanya L. Green, The Negro Project: Margaret Sanger's Genocide Project for Black
American's, in www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html.


12 Engdahl, op. cit., pp. 273-275; J.A. Miller, Are New Vaccines Laced With
Birth-Control Drugs?, HLI Reports, Human Life International, Gaithersburg, Maryland;
June/July 1995, Volume 13, Number 8.











--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Related:    The Svalbard Global Seed Vault Atop the World
Third World crops get $37.5 mln gene storage bank
'Doomsday' vault design unveiled
'Doomsday vault' to house world's seeds
The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics
The Ubermensch, the Superman and the Posthuman - Technofascism?
Kissinger, Eugenics And Depopulation
'Greens' movement may have darker agenda
Pioneer DuPont
Rockefeller Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
International Rice Research Institute
Syngenta
Syngenta (Wikipedia)
Monsanto
Monsanto's Government Ties
Monsanto Buys 'Terminator' Seeds Company
The Unethical Biopharming of America
GM food must be allowed into Europe, WTO rules
Scientists suspect health threat from GM corn

Παρασκευή 8 Φεβρουαρίου 2013

ΤΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΤΟ BLUE BEAM PROJECT



 Πρόκειται για δύο πράγματα. Μια προσομοίωση τεχνολογικά «δεύτερη έλευση» και η επανεμφάνιση του νέου «MONTAUK' τύπου έργα τα οποία έχουν την ικανότητα να αναλάβει ένα σωρό ανθρώπους, όπως σε ένα« τύπου έκσταση »του κατάσταση και χτυπήστε ελαφρά το σωρό σε ποτέ- Ποτέ γη. Κατά ειρωνικό τρόπο, τμήματα των ολογραφικών προβολών έχουν τη δυνατότητα για την αλλαγή του πλανήτη σε ενότητα με το Θεό. Δυστυχώς, αυτό λειτουργεί με την παραδοχή ότι ο άνθρωπος πρέπει με κάποιο τρόπο να γίνει Θεός με ανθρώπινη μορφή και τον έλεγχο άλλων Άνδρες και υπαγορεύει όλες τις ενέργειες και τις σκέψεις. Η υπολογιζόμενη αντίσταση στη νέα θρησκεία, η Νέα Παγκόσμια Τάξη και ο νέος «Μεσσίας», θα επιφέρει απώλεια για ανθρώπινη μια μαζική κλίμακα στην επακόλουθη «ιερούς πολέμους». Η «BLUE BEAM PROJECT" θα προσποιούνται ότι είναι η καθολική εκπλήρωση των προφητειών της παλαιάς? Ως σημαντική εκδήλωση όπως αυτή που έλαβε χώρα πριν από 2000 χρόνια. Κατ 'αρχήν, θα κάνει χρήση του ουρανού ως μια ολογραφική οθόνη προβολής για το διάστημα με βάση το λέιζερ που παράγουν δορυφόρους [Star Wars]. Οι προβολείς θα προβάλει ταυτόχρονα τις εικόνες στις τέσσερις γωνιές του πλανήτη, σε κάθε γλώσσα από την περιοχή. Ασχολείται με τη θρησκευτική πτυχή της Νέας Τάξης Πραγμάτων. Το σύστημα έχει ήδη δοκιμαστεί. Οι ολογραφικές προβολές της «εικόνας του Χριστού ήδη έχουν παρατηρηθεί σε ορισμένες απομακρυσμένες περιοχές της ερήμου. Αυτά έχουν αναφερθεί μόνο σε ταμπλόιντ εφημερίδες, έτσι ώστε να καθίστανται άμεσα αμφισβητήσιμο. Μπορούν επίσης να προβάλλει εικόνες των αλλοδαπών, τέρατα, άγγελοι - εσείς το όνομα. Υπολογιστές θα συντονίζει τους δορυφόρους και το λογισμικό θα τρέχει την παράσταση-και-tell. Ολογραφία βασίζεται σε πολύ σχεδόν πανομοιότυπα σήματα συνδυάζονται για να παράγουν την εικόνα, ή ένα ολόγραμμα, με αντίληψη του βάθους. Αυτό ισχύει εξίσου για ακουστική [ELF, VLF, LF] κύματα, όπως είναι οπτικά φαινόμενα. Συγκεκριμένα, η «παράσταση» θα αποτελείται από προβολές λέιζερ πολλαπλών ολογραφικές εικόνες σε διάφορα μέρη του πλανήτη, το καθένα λαμβάνει διαφορετικές εικόνες ανάλογα με την περιφερειακή κυριαρχούν θρησκευτική πίστη. Δεν είναι ένας ενιαίος χώρος θα αποκλείονται. Με computer animation και ηχητικά εφέ που εμφανίζονται να προέρχονται από τα βάθη του διαστήματος, εξέπληξε τους οπαδούς των διαφόρων δογμάτων θα γνωρίσει τη δική επέστρεψε Μεσσία τους, με την εντυπωσιακή πειστική ζωντανή realness. Οι διάφορες εικόνες του Χριστού, Μωάμεθ, Βούδα, τον Κρίσνα, κλπ., θα συγχωνεύσει σε ένα μετά το «σωστή εξήγηση» των μυστηρίων, παρουσιάζονται προφητείες και αποκαλύψεις. Αυτό το «ένας Θεός», θα σε λειτουργία το γεγονός ως αντι-Χριστού », ο οποίος θα« εξηγήσει »ότι οι διάφορες γραφές» έχουν παρεξηγηθεί »- ότι η θρησκευτική του παλαιού είναι υπεύθυνοι για τη μετατροπή αδελφός εναντίον αδελφού, έθνος εναντίον έθνους - ότι η θρησκείες του κόσμου θα πρέπει να καταργηθούν για να ανοίξει ο δρόμος για την GOLDEN AGE [NEW AGE] της Θρησκείας της One World, που εκπροσωπούν το ένα Θεό που βλέπουν μπροστά τους.

Τετάρτη 6 Φεβρουαρίου 2013

This is the confession of a former homosexual


Constantine, who always used to sit in the last rows of the church, got up - with obvious hesitation at first - and walked up to old Anastasy. As he walked to the pulpit, he noticed that everyone was looking at him in a strange manner. He could see a vague look of wonder in the eyes of the churchgoers, while he was wondering why old Anastasy invited only him to stand by him, during the reading of the letter.
Something unusual was however prompting him, so, after a quick glance at his beloved Katerina, he asked old Anastasy to say a few words in memory of Crazy John. Old Anastasy intended that the letter be read first, then Constantine would have been asked to speak. But father Vassily intervened, saying:
"Let the boy speak first, Anastasy".
With his head lowered, Constantine approached the microphone.
"I regard and perceive myself as the worst miasma that has ever existed in mankind. I furthermore know that you all confront me as a miasma of society, on account of my prior sinful activity. You are absolutely right to do so. That is how I deserve to be confronted by you, because with the life I led, I not only harmed myself, but also those near me - that means you all - but also all those that I caught in the meshes of iniquity. So, I am taking the opportunity that mister Anastasy is giving me, to ask each one of you personally to forgive me. I don't even deserve your forgiveness, because I have harmed you more than you could ever imagine. I harmed our town, our district, our neighborhood. I harmed friends and acquaintances of mine, and parents and relatives, because with my lifestyle, I had brought the mire of debauchery into your everyday lives.
This downhill slide that I had taken was ended once and for all by Crazy John. The prayers of that fool released me from the clutches, not only of one demon, but of an entire legion that had lodged inside me.
I was a transvestite for almost ten years. I believed at the time that happiness could be found in the ephemeral pleasure that bodily contact can arouse. I dressed provocatively; I used to be furious with people. I confronted life as though it were a vessel for pleasures, which I had to make sure I filled, on a daily basis. I experienced the mire of Hell, more than a human mind could ever imagine. That is why I used to regularly change my place of residence, since society had rightly perceived me as an outcast. And that was essentially what I was.  I believed that quarrels, insults and disappointments were the best kind of defence, in my literally vehement obsession to pursue something that deviated from what was socially correct - from the ideals and the values of the Gospel. At the time, I had looked upon my illness as a human right, and was under the illusion that it was an outright normal thing - a thing that nowadays, even top-level leaders tend to advertise as a mere supposed "otherness".
So, there wasn't a single police station in Athens that didn't know me. There wasn't a single courtroom where I hadn't been a "customer" - either as an accused, for having offended virtuous behaviour, or as a witness for the defence or for the prosecution, in various, related cases. I was under the illusion that with my overall immoral activity, I was serving a silent revolution in favour of the acceptance of homosexuality. Hunted as I was, I arrived at your neighborhood too, and presented myself to the kindly, poor old lady Chrysoula, to ask her to let her one-room apartment to me.  That is where I saw Crazy John for the very first time; he had brought over some bread to the almost destitute old woman.
Unlike most other tenants, I wasn't asked too many things by old Chrysoula. She just mentioned that the 30.000 drachmas she was asking for was the only income she would have, to make ends meet; so she asked me to not delay my payments because she had to pay for the bills, the building maintenance, as well as to buy her other basic needs.
"Oh, my dear child Constantine, God must have sent you! The apartment hasn't been rented out for three months and I am living off the help I get from misterApostolis the baker and mister Pantelis the grocer here, who send me bread and provisions with this fool here", she said, pointing to Crazy John.
"But I never sent you any bread Chrysoula, as I wasn't aware of your situation" Apostolis spontaneously remarked. 
"Nor have I ever sent you any provisions", Pantelis added.
"But that's what Crazy John told me!!" old Chrysoula replied, totally at a loss...
After this small and "endearing" intervention, Constantine continued:
"Crazy John always used to conceal his good deeds... He may have brought you food, my dear Chrysoula, but to me, he brought God".
Constantine's eyes became misty, and tears began to fall. Everyone was now becoming tearful, along with him. He took a deep breath and continued:
"Three days later, I moved into the apartment. Crazy John had helped me carry all my things. And when the transporter purposely dropped an innuendo because of my behaviour and the manner that I spoke, Crazy John stunned him, by pointing out to him that, as a person who systematically lived adulterously and behaved brutally towards his own two children, he had no right to make such remarks about me. The transporter was shocked by these revealing words, and he immediately stopped his sarcasm. I of course was under the impression that the two of them were acquainted, but was taken aback when the transporter turned towards Crazy John as he was leaving, and said:
"What are you anyway? Some kind of charmed one?"
"Yes George, I have been 'charmed' - by our Christ's love", the fool replied.
He even asked the transporter to stop sorrowing Christ, because, in spite of his overall behaviour, Christ had healed his daughter Theodora from a very serious ailment. George then departed, with his head lowered..... He is the gentleman who is sitting over there with his wife, and he can confirm the incident I just described.  I was impressed by that dialogue, but at the time I had dismissed it as the ravings of a fool.
So, on the evening of that same day, I dressed up in women's clothes as I normally did, and I went to a familiar transvestite haunt, on the main highway. You can imagine my surprise, when I spotted Crazy John watching me from the opposite corner of the block. The thought crossed my mind that he was seeking erotic companionship. But then, how did he find me?... The fool must have followed me (I thought to myself), and now he would go and tell what he saw to old Chrysoula... Oh well, I guess I will be searching for accommodation again... As all these thoughts were running through my mind, a prospective "customer" stopped in front of me. Just then, like a coiled spring, the fool jumped up and started to yell from across the road:
"He's got AIDS!!  He's sick and he will pass it on to you!!  Go away!! Go away!!"
I was taken by surprise by the erratic behaviour of a man whom I hardly knew. Naturally the prospective customer left. Then I started to curse Crazy John... I became hysterical...This went on for almost a month. Until this day, I will never know how he managed to discover those illicit haunts. One evening I actually beat him, and in fact quite severely.
But just imagine my surprise, when, every night after I got home, I would find an envelope containing almost double the money that I used to earn from my filthy activities, and on it would be written: "A blessing, for the servant of God, Constantine".  I didn't know what to make of all those weird things I was witnessing. In the afternoons, I would go for a walk and whenever I'd see Crazy John, I would get angry. But he would say
"My dear Constantine, stop sorrowing Christ and our Holy Mother, Who are mourning incessantly for you".
I had even contemplated leaving the apartment, but something was holding me there. The other transvestites would ask me:
"Hey, could he by chance be in love with you, which is why he's acting so weird?"
"No", I'd reply, "he doesn't have any such intentions."
To make a long story short, I decided to invite Crazy John to my place, to put an end to all these things. I was hoping that someone had been putting him up to it purposely, just to drive me insane. Crazy John responded to my invitation affirmatively, despite having been humiliated by me so many times. I don't know what came over me that evening, but I cleaned the house, cooked something light, and sat down to do some reading. I was leafing through a magazine with assorted material, and an article caught my attention, about a certain Elder Porphyry who served in the chapel of a hospital in central Omonia square of Athens.
I hadn't finished reading the article, when I heard Crazy John knocking on my door. As soon as I opened the door, he said:
"Be blessed, my Constantine, in the present aeon and in the one to come".
It was the first time that I had ever heard such a greeting, but it was also the first time that I had ever heard a demonic voice speaking from inside me:
"Have you come to my house here as well, you crazy old man, to drive me out?  I'm not alone here - I have 365 other friends!  I don't intend to go away! You'd better be the one to leave, otherwise I'll kill you!" Crazy John then  pulled out a Crucifix from his coat and raised it in front of me, and began to say:
"In the name of the Holy and Homoousion Trinity...." but I didn't hear anything after that, because I lost consciousness...
When I recovered, I saw the old fool standing there, smiling at me. I felt really happy that he was there, but didn't know the reason I felt that way.
"I brought you a gift, my Constantine. It is the Book of Psalms - a book that was written by the king and Prophet, David."
"What's going on? What happened?" I asked.
"My Constantine, you have received an enormous blessing. Christ has chosen you. He is preparing you for very important feats. However, you must be prepared to put up a serious fight, because what you have inside you is not about to leave very easily."
If you could only have seen the way that Crazy John's face glowed, you would have understood why I was so terrified. I had always thought that all the talk about demons was sheer fiction. I believed that they were just an invention thought up by priests and religion, intended to scare people and to extract easy money from them, so that they would enjoy their own lives, get rich, etc..  And yet, there I was, a living witness of their insidious activity against humans. Crazy John became a brother and a friend from that day on. That very same night, I gathered all the women's clothes and shoes and cosmetics that I had, and threw them into the garbage can. The next day, I changed my phone number. With the help of that fool, I even secured a job in the Accounts department of a large company. The owner of the company was a friend of Crazy John; he actually hired me with a satisfactory salary. At the same time, I would go with Crazy John - on an almost daily basis - to a church high up on Hymettus Mountain, where the priest would read the benedictions of Saint Basil (exorcisms) over me, while Crazy John would read Psalms. I cannot describe what I went through. What I can now shout out, thanks to this experience, is that homosexuality (and prostitution in general) is not an "otherness" or an illness; it is a formidable demon, which infuriates the Almighty. What I also want to tell you, is that our holy Church possesses the weapons that are able to exterminate all those things that our modern society nowadays believes (as I used to believe) to be "nonsense".
The prayers of our neighborhood fool saved me. My acquaintance with him changed my entire life. What I experienced over these last few years in this blessed neighborhood constitute a true miracle of the Triadic and only true God. I escaped from the clutches of a true Hell, and I am now living in a world that I had never lived - not even in my wildest dreams.
With the constant support of this saintly man - who was anything but a fool - I came to understand my mistake; I realized various things and situations that comprise the foundations of our society; I became familiar with the love of Christ. I had been functioning like one who is addicted to a toxic substance; I couldn't be told apart from a drug addict; I was living in a nightmare, which that wonderful saint of God - Crazy John - put an end to. 
But I don't want to tire you any further with my story. After all, I am only recording my entire story in detail, as old Anastasy asked me to.  I also apologize to you all, and to the innumerable victims that I had lured into the meshes of the iniquity that I was trapped in. I apologize to my beloved Katerina, who has opened her embrace to the most sinful person in the universe; who shut her ears to all the unfavorable comments and the justified criticism, and has accepted my marriage proposal to her.  She has accepted to live with a zero, with an outcast, a moron.  This holy man, Crazy John, had invested in this marriage with his prayers and his tears.
Constantine's last words were lost in his sobs. Also crying with him was Father Vassily, who had run up to hug him, as did all the other churchgoers.
"Father Vassily, I'm thinking of moving out of the neighborhood - not for me, but for Katerina", Constantine murmured falteringly, with difficulty.
Father Vassily then spoke up, and said:
"Dear brethren, Constantine has just expressed the desire to leave our neighborhood. What do you say? Are we going to leave the living testimony of a miracle by our departed brother John - Constantine - but also our own Katerina, to leave?"
"No! No!" they all shouted.....

Σάββατο 12 Ιανουαρίου 2013

Αναδημοσίευση από το βιβλίο «ΓΕΡΟΝΤΟΣ ΠΑΙΣΙΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΡΕΙΤΟΥ ΛΟΓΟΙ τ. Γ΄»


ΓΙΑ ΤΟΥΣ ΕΞΟΡΚΙΣΜΟΎΣ

-Γέροντα, σήμερα έφεραν μία δαιμονισμένη και παρακάλεσαν να πούμε στον ιερέα να της διαβάσει εξορκισμούς. Τι να κάνουμε;
-Σ’ αυτή την περίπτωση καλύτερα να λέγατε να το κανονίσει ο πνευματικός της. Για να είναι ο διάβολος μέσα της, θα πει ότι αυτή έκανε κάποια σοβαρή αμαρτία  ή οι γονείς της, και έδωσαν δικαιώματα, γιατί η αμαρτία φέρνει τον διάβολο. Αν δεν μετανοήσουν και δεν εξομολογηθούν, δεν φεύγει η αμαρτία, επομένως δεν φεύγει και ο διάβολος.
-Βοηθιούνται, Γέροντα, οι δαιμονισμένοι με τους εξορκισμούς;
-Ανάλογα. Οι εξορκισμοί βοηθούν, όταν διαβάζονται σε ένα παιδάκι δαιμονισμένο που δεν έδωσε δικαιώματα και δεν ξέρει από εξομολόγηση ή σε έναν μεγάλο που έχασε τα λογικά του και δεν μπορεί να εξομολογηθεί. Όταν έχει τα λογικά του ο δαιμονισμένος, πρέπει πρώτα να βοηθηθεί να βρει σε τι έφταιξε και δαιμονίστηκε, να μετανοήσει, να εξομολογηθεί και μετά, αν χρειαστεί, να του διαβάσουν εξορκισμούς. Γιατί και μόνο με την συγχωρητική ευχή, μπορεί να φύγει το δαιμόνιο.

Μερικοί ιερείς μαζεύουν και αυτούς που έχουν δαιμόνιο και άλλους που έχουν κάποια αρρώστια και τους διαβάζουν εξορκισμούς. Ένας είχε πάρκινσον και του διάβαζαν εξορκισμούς. Να, και σήμερα, έφεραν έναν ηλικιωμένο που έλεγαν ότι είναι δαιμονισμένος. Το αριστερό του χέρι πάει πέρα-δώθε. Τον πιάνουν και κρίσεις. «Από πότε, τον ρωτάω, είσαι έτσι;». «Από μικρός», μου λέει. Απόρησα. Πρόσεξα μετά ότι το κεφάλι του, στο αριστερό μέρος, ήταν λίγο ζουλιγμένο. Στην γέννα, φαίνεται, κάτι είχε πάθει και ύστερα είχε προβλήματα. Να έχει ο άλλος τον πόνο του και να του λένε πως έχει δαιμόνιο, να του διαβάζουν εξορκισμούς, «έξελθε, ακάθαρτον πνεύμα…», και να γίνεται ρεζίλι και στον κόσμο! Δεν κάνει! Πόσα παιδιά που τα θεωρούν δαιμονισμένα, δεν έχουν δαιμόνιο! Μου έφεραν ένα παιδί είκοσι πέντε χρόνων που έλεγαν ότι είναι δαιμονισμένο. Του έδωσα να πιεί αγιασμό και το καημένο δεν αντέδρασε καθόλου. «Τι κάνει το παιδί; Ρωτάω τον πατέρα του. Από πότε το έπαθε;». «Από έξι χρονών, μου λέει. Τότε είχαν φέρει σκοτωμένο τον παππού του στο μαγαζί και το παιδί, μόλις τον είδε, έπαθε». Είχε πάθει το καημένο έναν νευρικό κλονισμό. Εδώ, και σε μεγάλο αν συμβεί αυτό, μπορεί να πάθει, πόσο μάλλον ένα παιδάκι! Άντε, τώρα, να το έχουν για δαιμονισμένο!
-Γέροντα, οι εξορκισμοί διαβάζονται και νοερώς;
-Νοερώς είναι καλύτερα. Βασικά οι εξορκισμοί πρέπει να διαβάζονται με πόνο, με ταπείνωση, όχι με υπερηφάνεια. Όταν οι ιερείς λένε δυνατά και υπερήφανα το  «έξελθε πνεύμα ακάθαρτον», αγριεύει ο διάβολος, θυμώνει, εκμεταλλεύεται τον εγωισμό του δαιμονισμένου και μπορεί να του πει: «για δες, σε κάνει ρεζίλι στον κόσμο· κοπάνα τον αυτόν τον παπά», οπότε ο δαιμονισμένος αρχίζει να χτυπάει τον παπά. Έτσι δεν φεύγει το δαιμόνιο, αλλά φεύγει ο παπάς με το ευχολόγιο του… Μια φορά ένας ιερέας είπε σε έναν δαιμονισμένο: «ΣΕ διατάζω, ακάθαρτο πνεύμα, να φύγεις από αυτόν τον άνθρωπο!». Ε, γι’ αυτό κι εγώ δεν φεύγω…» του λέει ο διάβολος με το στόμα του δαιμονισμένου. Γι’ αυτό λέω στους ιερείς, όταν διαβάζουν εξορκισμούς, ποτέ να μην φωνάζουν: «έξελθε, ακάθαρτον πνεύμα…», λες και τα δαιμόνια δεν ακούν!
Αλλά και οι συγγενείς του δαιμονισμένου δεν χρειάζεται να πουν σε άλλους ότι θα καλέσουν τον παπά να διαβάσει εξορκισμούς. Καλύτερα να πουν ότι θα διαβάσει μια παράκληση, και ας  διαβάσει τους εξορκισμούς με χαμηλή φωνή.

ΜΑΡΤΎΡΙΟ ΠΕΡΝΟΎΝ  ΟΙ ΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ

Πάντως πολύ ταλαιπωρούνται όσοι έχουν δαιμόνιο, γιατί  και ταπεινώνονται, αλλά και βασανίζονται από τον διάβολο! Μια φορά είχα συναντήσει στην Μονή Σταυρονικήτα ένα παλικάρι είκοσι τριών ετών που είχε δαιμόνιο. Ήταν πετσί και κόκαλο. Έξω έκανε παγωνιά, στον ναό έκαιγε σόμπα, και αυτός φορούσε ένα λεπτό κοντομάνικο πουκάμισο και καθόταν πίσω στην λιτή. Δεν άντεξα, πάω, του δίνω ένα μάλλινο ρούχο. «Φόρεσε τον αυτό, του λέω. Δεν κρυώνεις;». «Τι να κρυώσω, πάτερ, μου λέει, εγώ καίγομαι». Έ, να, αυτό είναι κόλαση.
Σε μερικούς μάλιστα δαιμονισμένους, που από την φύση τους είναι ευαίσθητοι, το ταγκαλάκι τους λέει ότι δεν θα σωθούν και τους βάζει να αυτοκτονήσουν. Φοβερό! Δεν είναι μικρό πράγμα! Ήξερα κάποιον δαιμονισμένο που και οι παπάδες τον είχαν βαρεθεί τον καημένο. Πήγαινε να του διαβάσουν εξορκισμούς και τον έδιωχναν. Ύστερα ο διάβολος του έλεγε και για μένα: «μην πας και σ’ αυτόν · ούτε αυτός θα σε δεχθεί», και τον είχε ρίξει σε απελπισία. Έναν άλλον, που είχε γίνει καλά με την χάρη του Αγίου Αρσενίου, τι τον έκανε ο διάβολος! Είχε έρθει εδώ, για να προσκυνήσει τα Λείψανα του Αγίου Αρσενίου, αλλά ήταν κλειστό το Μοναστήρι. Του παρουσιάζεται λοιπόν ο διάβολος με την μορφή του Αγίου Αρσενίου κάτω  στην πόρτα και του λέει: «Να μην ξαναπατήσεις εδώ ούτε εγώ σε θέλω ούτε ο Παΐσιος». Τον έδιωξε. Κατάλαβες; Άρχισε μετά και έβριζε τον Άγιο, έβριζε κι εμένα. Καλά, εγώ είμαι για βρίσιμο, αλλά ο Άγιος!... οπότε ο ταλαίπωρος δαιμονίσθηκε και πάλι. Εδώ, μόνο με αναίδεια αν φερθεί κανείς, απομακρύνεται η Χάρις του Θεού, πόσο μάλλον να βρίζει τους Αγίους. Ήρθε και στο Καλύβι και φώναζε: «Τι σου έκανα και δεν με θέλεις; Γιατί κι εσύ δεν με βοηθάς; Θέλεις να βασανίζομαι;» Και του λέω: «ευλογημένε, ο διάβολος ήταν αυτός που σ’ έδιωξε· δεν ήταν ο Άγιος· ο Άγιος δεν διώχνει», και να μην ακούει. Πίστευε στον λογισμό του. Ξέρετε τι ταλαιπωρία, τι μαρτύριο περνούν κάθε μέρα οι καημένοι;
Αλλά και πολλοί δαιμονισμένοι ταλαιπωρούνται, για να βάλουν μερικοί άλλοι μυαλό. Γιατί, όταν τους βλέπουν πόσο βασανίζονται, προβληματίζονται, έρχονται σε συναίσθηση και μετανοούν. Μη νομίζετε δηλαδή ότι όσοι δαιμονίζονται έχουν περισσότερες αμαρτίες. Επιτρέπει όμως ο Θεός να δαιμονίζονται, οπότε εξευτελίζονται, ταπεινώνονται, ξοφλάνε αμαρτίες, παίρνουν αυτοί μισθό, αλλά βοηθιούνται και όσοι τους βλέπουν να ταλαιπωρούνται.
Βέβαια θα πει κανείς ότι υπάρχουν άνθρωποι που κάνουν ένα σωρό αμαρτίες και δεν δαιμονίζονται· πώς γίνεται αυτό; όταν ο άνθρωπος έχει φθάσει σε τέλεια πώρωση, τότε δεν προσβάλλεται από τον δαίμονα, γιατί βλέπει ο Θεός ότι δεν θα βοηθηθεί. Πρέπει να ξέρουμε ότι και η προσβολή από δαιμονική ενέργεια είναι, κατά κάποιον τρόπο, δώρο του Θεού προς τον αμαρτωλό άνθρωπο, για να ταπεινωθεί, να μετανοήσει και να σωθεί.

Δευτέρα 31 Δεκεμβρίου 2012

Milk and the cause of diseases that are many


"MILK" Just the word itself sounds comforting! "How about a nice cup of hot milk?" The last time you heard that question it was from someone who cared for you--and you appreciated their effort.
The entire matter of food and especially that of milk is surrounded with emotional and cultural importance. Milk was our very first food. If we were fortunate it was our mother's milk. A loving link, given and taken. It was the only path to survival. If not mother's milk it was cow's milk or soy milk "formula"--rarely it was goat, camel or water buffalo milk.
Now, we are a nation of milk drinkers. Nearly all of us. Infants, the young, adolescents, adults and even the aged. We drink dozens or even several hundred gallons a year and add to that many pounds of "dairy products" such as cheese, butter, and yogurt.
Can there be anything wrong with this? We see reassuring images of healthy, beautiful people on our television screens and hear messages that assure us that, "Milk is good for your body." Our dieticians insist that: "You've got to have milk, or where will you get your calcium?" School lunches always include milk and nearly every hospital meal will have milk added. And if that isn't enough, our nutritionists told us for years that dairy products make up an "essential food group." Industry spokesmen made sure that colourful charts proclaiming the necessity of milk and other essential nutrients were made available at no cost for schools. Cow's milk became "normal."
You may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk. Further, most of them can't drink milk because it makes them ill.
There are students of human nutrition who are not supportive of milk use for adults. Here is a quotation from the March/April 1991 Utne Reader:
If you really want to play it safe, you may decide to join the growing number of Americans who are eliminating dairy products from their diets altogether. Although this sounds radical to those of us weaned on milk and the five basic food groups, it is eminently viable. Indeed, of all the mammals, only humans--and then only a minority, principally Caucasians--continue to drink milk beyond babyhood.
Who is right? Why the confusion? Where best to get our answers? Can we trust milk industry spokesmen? Can you trust any industry spokesmen? Are nutritionists up to date or are they simply repeating what their professors learned years ago? What about the new voices urging caution?
I believe that there are three reliable sources of information. The first, and probably the best, is a study of nature. The second is to study the history of our own species. Finally we need to look at the world's scientific literature on the subject of milk.
Let's look at the scientific literature first. From 1988 to 1993 there were over 2,700 articles dealing with milk recorded in the 'Medicine' archives. Fifteen hundred of theses had milk as the main focus of the article. There is no lack of scientific information on this subject. I reviewed over 500 of the 1,500 articles, discarding articles that dealt exclusively with animals, esoteric research and inconclusive studies.
How would I summarize the articles? They were only slightly less than horrifying. First of all, none of the authors spoke of cow's milk as an excellent food, free of side effects and the 'perfect food' as we have been led to believe by the industry. The main focus of the published reports seems to be on intestinal colic, intestinal irritation, intestinal bleeding, anemia, allergic reactions in infants and children as well as infections such as salmonella. More ominous is the fear of viral infection with bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes. Contamination of milk by blood and white (pus) cells as well as a variety of chemicals and insecticides was also discussed. Among children the problems were allergy, ear and tonsillar infections, bedwetting, asthma, intestinal bleeding, colic and childhood diabetes. In adults the problems seemed centered more around heart disease and arthritis, allergy, sinusitis, and the more serious questions of leukemia, lymphoma and cancer.
I think that an answer can also be found in a consideration of what occurs in nature & what happens with free living mammals and what happens with human groups living in close to a natural state as 'hunter-gatherers'.
Our paleolithic ancestors are another crucial and interesting group to study. Here we are limited to speculation and indirect evidences, but the bony remains available for our study are remarkable. There is no doubt whatever that these skeletal remains reflect great strength, muscularity (the size of the muscular insertions show this), and total absence of advanced osteoporosis. And if you feel that these people are not important for us to study, consider that today our genes are programming our bodies in almost exactly the same way as our ancestors of 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.
WHAT IS MILK?
Milk is a maternal lactating secretion, a short term nutrient for new-borns. Nothing more, nothing less. Invariably, the mother of any mammal will provide her milk for a short period of time immediately after birth. When the time comes for 'weaning', the young offspring is introduced to the proper food for that species of mammal. A familiar example is that of a puppy. The mother nurses the pup for just a few weeks and then rejects the young animal and teaches it to eat solid food. Nursing is provided by nature only for the very youngest of mammals. Of course, it is not possible for animals living in a natural state to continue with the drinking of milk after weaning.
IS ALL MILK THE SAME?
Then there is the matter of where we get our milk. We have settled on the cow because of its docile nature, its size, and its abundant milk supply. Somehow this choice seems 'normal' and blessed by nature, our culture, and our customs. But is it natural? Is it wise to drink the milk of another species of mammal?
Consider for a moment, if it was possible, to drink the milk of a mammal other than a cow, let's say a rat. Or perhaps the milk of a dog would be more to your liking. Possibly some horse milk or cat milk. Do you get the idea? Well, I'm not serious about this, except to suggest that human milk is for human infants, dogs' milk is for pups, cows' milk is for calves, cats' milk is for kittens, and so forth. Clearly, this is the way nature intends it. Just use your own good judgement on this one.
Milk is not just milk. The milk of every species of mammal is unique and specifically tailored to the requirements of that animal. For example, cows' milk is very much richer in protein than human milk. Three to four times as much. It has five to seven times the mineral content. However, it is markedly deficient in essential fatty acids when compared to human mothers' milk. Mothers' milk has six to ten times as much of the essential fatty acids, especially linoleic acid. (Incidentally, skimmed cow's milk has no linoleic acid). It simply is not designed for humans.
Food is not just food, and milk is not just milk. It is not only the proper amount of food but the proper qualitative composition that is critical for the very best in health and growth. Biochemists and physiologists -and rarely medical doctors - are gradually learning that foods contain the crucial elements that allow a particular species to develop its unique specializations.
Clearly, our specialization is for advanced neurological development and delicate neuromuscular control. We do not have much need of massive skeletal growth or huge muscle groups as does a calf. Think of the difference between the demands make on the human hand and the demands on a cow's hoof. Human new-borns specifically need critical material for their brains, spinal cord and nerves.
Can mother's milk increase intelligence? It seems that it can. In a remarkable study published in Lancet during 1992 (Vol. 339, p. 261-4), a group of British workers randomly placed premature infants into two groups. One group received a proper formula, the other group received human breast milk. Both fluids were given by stomach tube. These children were followed up for over 10 years. In intelligence testing, the human milk children averaged 10 IQ points higher! Well, why not? Why wouldn't the correct building blocks for the rapidly maturing and growing brain have a positive effect?
In the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1982) Ralph Holman described an infant who developed profound neurological disease while being nourished by intravenous fluids only. The fluids used contained only linoleic acid - just one of the essential fatty acids. When the other, alpha linoleic acid, was added to the intravenous fluids the neurological disorders cleared.
In the same journal five years later Bjerve, Mostad and Thoresen, working in Norway found exactly the same problem in adult patients on long term gastric tube feeding.
In 1930 Dr. G.O. Burr in Minnesota working with rats found that linoleic acid deficiencies created a deficiency syndrome. Why is this mentioned? In the early 1960s pediatricians found skin lesions in children fed formulas without the same linoleic acid. Remembering the research, the addition of the acid to the formula cured the problem. Essential fatty acids are just that and cows' milk is markedly deficient in these when compared to human milk.
WELL, AT LEAST COW'S MILK IS PURE
Or is it? Fifty years ago an average cow produced 2,000 pounds of milk per year. Today the top producers give 50,000 pounds! How was this accomplished? Drugs, antibiotics, hormones, forced feeding plans and specialized breeding; that's how.
The latest high-tech onslaught on the poor cow is bovine growth hormone or BGH. This genetically engineered drug is supposed to stimulate milk production but, according to Monsanto, the hormone's manufacturer, does not affect the milk or meat. There are three other manufacturers: Upjohn, Eli Lilly, and American Cyanamid Company. Obviously, there have been no long-term studies on the hormone's effect on the humans drinking the milk. Other countries have banned BGH because of safety concerns. One of the problems with adding molecules to a milk cows' body is that the molecules usually come out in the milk. I don't know how you feel, but I don't want to experiment with the ingestion of a growth hormone. A related problem is that it causes a marked increase (50 to 70 per cent) in mastitis. This, then, requires antibiotic therapy, and the residues of the antibiotics appear in the milk. It seems that the public is uneasy about this product and in one survey 43 per cent felt that growth hormone treated milk represented a health risk. A vice president for public policy at Monsanto was opposed to labelling for that reason, and because the labelling would create an 'artificial distinction'. The country is awash with milk as it is, we produce more milk than we can consume. Let's not create storage costs and further taxpayer burdens, because the law requires the USDA to buy any surplus of butter, cheese, or non-fat dry milk at a support price set by Congress! In fiscal 1991, the USDA spent $757 million on surplus butter, and one billion dollars a year on average for price supports during the 1980s (Consumer Reports, May 1992: 330-32).
Any lactating mammal excretes toxins through her milk. This includes antibiotics, pesticides, chemicals and hormones. Also, all cows' milk contains blood! The inspectors are simply asked to keep it under certain limits. You may be horrified to learn that the USDA allows milk to contain from one to one and a half million white blood cells per millilitre. (That's only 1/30 of an ounce). If you don't already know this, I'm sorry to tell you that another way to describe white cells where they don't belong would be to call them pus cells. To get to the point, is milk pure or is it a chemical, biological, and bacterial cocktail? Finally, will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protect you? The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) tells us that the FDA and the individual States are failing to protect the public from drug residues in milk. Authorities test for only 4 of the 82 drugs in dairy cows.
As you can imagine, the Milk Industry Foundation's spokesman claims it's perfectly safe. Jerome Kozak says, "I still think that milk is the safest product we have."
Other, perhaps less biased observers, have found the following: 38% of milk samples in 10 cities were contaminated with sulfa drugs or other antibiotics. (This from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest and The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 29, 1989).. A similar study in Washington, DC found a 20 percent contamination rate (Nutrition Action Healthletter, April 1990).
What's going on here? When the FDA tested milk, they found few problems. However, they used very lax standards. When they used the same criteria, the FDA data showed 51 percent of the milk samples showed drug traces.
Let's focus in on this because itÂ’s critical to our understanding of the apparent discrepancies. The FDA uses a disk-assay method that can detect only 2 of the 30 or so drugs found in milk. Also, the test detects only at the relatively high level. A more powerful test called the 'Charm II test' can detect drugs down to 5 parts per billion.
One nasty subject must be discussed. It seems that cows are forever getting infections around the udder that require ointments and antibiotics. An article from France tells us that when a cow receives penicillin, that penicillin appears in the milk for from 4 to 7 milkings. Another study from the University of Nevada, Reno tells of cells in 'mastic milk', milk from cows with infected udders. An elaborate analysis of the cell fragments, employing cell cultures, flow cytometric analysis , and a great deal of high tech stuff. Do you know what the conclusion was? If the cow has mastitis, there is pus in the milk. Sorry, itÂ’s in the study, all concealed with language such as "macrophages containing many vacuoles and phagocytosed particles," etc.
IT GETS WORSE
Well, at least human mothers' milk is pure! Sorry. A huge study showed that human breast milk in over 14,000 women had contamination by pesticides! Further, it seems that the sources of the pesticides are meat and--you guessed it-- dairy products. Well, why not? These pesticides are concentrated in fat and that's what's in these products. (Of interest, a subgroup of lactating vegetarian mothers had only half the levels of contamination).
A recent report showed an increased concentration of pesticides in the breast tissue of women with breast cancer when compared to the tissue of women with fibrocystic disease. Other articles in the standard medical literature describe problems. Just scan these titles:
1.Cow's Milk as a Cause of Infantile Colic Breast-Fed Infants. Lancet 2 (1978): 437 2.Dietary Protein-Induced Colitis in Breast- Fed Infants, J. Pediatr. I01 (1982): 906 3.The Question of the Elimination of Foreign Protein in Women's Milk, J. Immunology 19 (1930): 15
There are many others. There are dozens of studies describing the prompt appearance of cows' milk allergy in children being exclusively breast-fed! The cows' milk allergens simply appear in the mother's milk and are transmitted to the infant.
A committee on nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the use of whole cows' milk in infancy (Pediatrics 1983: 72-253). They were unable to provide any cogent reason why bovine milk should be used before the first birthday yet continued to recommend its use! Doctor Frank Oski from the Upstate Medical Centre Department of Pediatrics, commenting on the recommendation, cited the problems of acute gastrointestinal blood loss in infants, the lack of iron, recurrent abdominal pain, milk- borne infections and contaminants, and said:
Why give it at all - then or ever? In the face of uncertainty about many of the potential dangers of whole bovine milk, it would seem prudent to recommend that whole milk not be started until the answers are available. Isn't it time for these uncontrolled experiments on human nutrition to come to an end?
In the same issue of Pediatrics he further commented:
It is my thesis that whole milk should not be fed to the infant in the first year of life because of its association with iron deficiency anemia (milk is so deficient in iron that an infant would have to drink an impossible 31 quarts a day to get the RDA of 15 mg), acute gastrointiestinal bleeding, and various manifestations of food allergy.
I suggest that unmodified whole bovine milk should not be consumed after infancy because of the problems of lactose intolerance, its contribution to the genesis of atherosclerosis, and its possible link to other diseases.
In late 1992 Dr. Benjamin Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, shocked the country when he articulated the same thoughts and specified avoidance for the first two years of life. Here is his quotation:
I want to pass on the word to parents that cows' milk from the carton has definite faults for some babies. Human milk is the right one for babies. A study comparing the incidence of allergy and colic in the breast-fed infants of omnivorous and vegan mothers would be important. I haven't found such a study; it would be both important and inexpensive. And it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved.
OTHER PROBLEMS
Let's just mention the problems of bacterial contamination. Salmonella, E. coli, and staphylococcal infections can be traced to milk. In the old days tuberculosis was a major problem and some folks want to go back to those times by insisting on raw milk on the basis that it's "natural." This is insanity! A study from UCLA showed that over a third of all cases of salmonella infection in California, 1980-1983 were traced to raw milk. That'll be a way to revive good old brucellosis again and I would fear leukemia, too. (More about that later). In England, and Wales where raw milk is still consumed there have been outbreaks of milk-borne diseases. The Journal of the American Medical Association (251: 483, 1984) reported a multi-state series of infections caused by Yersinia enterocolitica in pasteurised whole milk. This is despite safety precautions.
All parents dread juvenile diabetes for their children. A Canadian study reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Mar. 1990, describes a "...significant positive correlation between consumption of unfermented milk protein and incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in data from various countries. Conversely a possible negative relationship is observed between breast-feeding at age 3 months and diabetes risk.".
Another study from Finland found that diabetic children had higher levels of serum antibodies to cowsÂ’ milk (Diabetes Research 7(3): 137-140 March 1988). Here is a quotation from this study:
We infer that either the pattern of cows' milk consumption is altered in children who will have insulin dependent diabetes mellitus or, their immunological reactivity to proteins in cows' milk is enhanced, or the permeability of their intestines to cows' milk protein is higher than normal.
The April 18, 1992 British Medical Journal has a fascinating study contrasting the difference in incidence of juvenile insulin dependent diabetes in Pakistani children who have migrated to England. The incidence is roughly 10 times greater in the English group compared to children remaining in Pakistan! What caused this highly significant increase? The authors said that "the diet was unchanged in Great Britain." Do you believe that? Do you think that the availability of milk, sugar and fat is the same in Pakistan as it is in England? That a grocery store in England has the same products as food sources in Pakistan? I don't believe that for a minute. Remember, we're not talking here about adult onset, type II diabetes which all workers agree is strongly linked to diet as well as to a genetic predisposition. This study is a major blow to the "it's all in your genes" crowd. Type I diabetes was always considered to be genetic or possibly viral, but now this? So resistant are we to consider diet as causation that the authors of the last article concluded that the cooler climate in England altered viruses and caused the very real increase in diabetes! The first two authors had the same reluctance top admit the obvious. The milk just may have had something to do with the disease.
The latest in this remarkable list of reports, a New England Journal of Medicine article (July 30, 1992), also reported in the Los Angeles Times. This study comes from the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto and from Finnish researchers. In Finland there is "...the world's highest rate of dairy product consumption and the world's highest rate of insulin dependent diabetes. The disease strikes about 40 children out of every 1,000 there contrasted with six to eight per 1,000 in the United States.... Antibodies produced against the milk protein during the first year of life, the researchers speculate, also attack and destroy the pancreas in a so-called auto-immune reaction, producing diabetes in people whose genetic makeup leaves them vulnerable." "...142 Finnish children with newly diagnosed diabetes. They found that every one had at least eight times as many antibodies against the milk protein as did healthy children, clear evidence that the children had a raging auto immune disorder." The team has now expanded the study to 400 children and is starting a trial where 3,000 children will receive no dairy products during the first nine months of life. "The study may take 10 years, but we'll get a definitive answer one way or the other," according to one of the researchers. I would caution them to be certain that the breast feeding mothers use on cows' milk in their diets or the results will be confounded by the transmission of the cows' milk protein in the mother's breast milk.... Now what was the reaction from the diabetes association? This is very interesting! Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, the president of the association says: "It does not mean that children should stop drinking milk or that parents of diabetics should withdraw dairy products. These are rich sources of good protein." (Emphasis added) My God, it's the "good protein" that causes the problem! Do you suspect that the dairy industry may have helped the American Diabetes Association in the past?
LEUKEMIA? LYMPHOMA? THIS MAY BE THE WORST--BRACE YOURSELF!
I hate to tell you this, but the bovine leukemia virus is found in more than three of five dairy cows in the United States! This involves about 80% of dairy herds. Unfortunately, when the milk is pooled, a very large percentage of all milk produced is contaminated (90 to 95 per cent). Of course the virus is killed in pasteurisation-- if the pasteurisation was done correctly. What if the milk is raw? In a study of randomly collected raw milk samples the bovine leukemia virus was recovered from two-thirds. I sincerely hope that the raw milk dairy herds are carefully monitored when compared to the regular herds. (Science 1981; 213:1014).
This is a world-wide problem. One lengthy study from Germany deplored the problem and admitted the impossibility of keeping the virus from infected cows' milk from the rest of the milk. Several European countries, including Germany and Switzerland, have attempted to "cull" the infected cows from their herds. Certainly the United States must be the leader in the fight against leukemic dairy cows, right? Wrong! We are the worst in the world with the former exception of Venezuela according to Virgil Hulse MD, a milk specialist who also has a B.S. in Dairy Manufacturing as well as a Master's degree in Public Health.
As mentioned, the leukemia virus is rendered inactive by pasteurisation. Of course. However, there can be Chernobyl like accidents. One of these occurred in the Chicago area in April, 1985. At a modern, large, milk processing plant an accidental "cross connection" between raw and pasteurized milk occurred. A violent salmonella outbreak followed, killing 4 and making an estimated 150,000 ill. Now the question I would pose to the dairy industry people is this: "How can you assure the people who drank this milk that they were not exposed to the ingestion of raw, unkilled, bully active bovine leukemia viruses?" Further, it would be fascinating to know if a "cluster" of leukemia cases blossoms in that area in 1 to 3 decades. There are reports of "leukemia clusters" elsewhere, one of them mentioned in the June 10, 1990 San Francisco Chronicle involving Northern California.
What happens to other species of mammals when they are exposed to the bovine leukemia virus? It's a fair question and the answer is not reassuring. Virtually all animals exposed to the virus develop leukemia. This includes sheep, goats, and even primates such as rhesus monkeys and chimpanzees. The route of transmission includes ingestion (both intravenous and intramuscular) and cells present in milk. There are obviously no instances of transfer attempts to human beings, but we know that the virus can infect human cells in vitro. There is evidence of human antibody formation to the bovine leukemia virus; this is disturbing. How did the bovine leukemia virus particles gain access to humans and become antigens? Was it as small, denatured particles?
If the bovine leukemia viruses causes human leukemia, we could expect the dairy states with known leukemic herds to have a higher incidence of human leukemia. Is this so? Unfortunately, it seems to be the case! Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin have statistically higher incidence of leukemia than the national average. In Russia and in Sweden, areas with uncontrolled bovine leukemia virus have been linked with increases in human leukemia. I am also told that veterinarians have higher rates of leukemia than the general public. Dairy farmers have significantly elevated leukemia rates. Recent research shows lymphocytes from milk fed to neonatal mammals gains access to bodily tissues by passing directly through the intestinal wall.
An optimistic note from the University of Illinois, Ubana from the Department of Animal Sciences shows the importance of one's perspective. Since they are concerned with the economics of milk and not primarily the health aspects, they noted that the production of milk was greater in the cows with the bovine leukemia virus. However when the leukemia produced a persistent and significant lymphocytosis (increased white blood cell count), the production fell off. They suggested "a need to re-evaluate the economic impact of bovine leukemia virus infection on the dairy industry". Does this mean that leukemia is good for profits only if we can keep it under control? You can get the details on this business concern from Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences, U.S. Feb. 1989. I added emphasis and am insulted that a university department feels that this is an economic and not a human health issue. Do not expect help from the Department of Agriculture or the universities. The money stakes and the political pressures are too great. You're on you own.
What does this all mean? We know that virus is capable of producing leukemia in other animals. Is it proven that it can contribute to human leukemia (or lymphoma, a related cancer)? Several articles tackle this one:
1.Epidemiologic Relationships of the Bovine Population and Human Leukemia in Iowa. Am Journal of Epidemiology 112 (1980):80 2.Milk of Dairy Cows Frequently Contains a Leukemogenic Virus. Science 213 (1981): 1014 3.Beware of the Cow. (Editorial) Lancet 2 (1974):30 4.Is Bovine Milk A Health Hazard?. Pediatrics; Suppl. Feeding the Normal Infant. 75:182-186; 1985
In Norway, 1422 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years. Those drinking 2 or more glasses of milk per day had 3.5 times the incidence of cancer of the lymphatic organs. British Med. Journal 61:456-9, March 1990.
One of the more thoughtful articles on this subject is from Allan S. Cunningham of Cooperstown, New York. Writing in the Lancet, November 27, 1976 (page 1184), his article is entitled, "Lymphomas and Animal-Protein Consumption". Many people think of milk as “liquid meat” and Dr. Cunningham agrees with this. He tracked the beef and dairy consumption in terms of grams per day for a one year period, 1955-1956., in 15 countries . New Zealand, United States and Canada were highest in that order. The lowest was Japan followed by Yugoslavia and France. The difference between the highest and lowest was quite pronounced: 43.8 grams/day for New Zealanders versus 1.5 for Japan. Nearly a 30-fold difference! (Parenthetically, the last 36 years have seen a startling increase in the amount of beef and milk used in Japan and their disease patterns are reflecting this, confirming the lack of 'genetic protection' seen in migration studies. Formerly the increase in frequency of lymphomas in Japanese people was only in those who moved to the USA)!
An interesting bit of trivia is to note the memorial built at the Gyokusenji Temple in Shimoda, Japan. This marked the spot where the first cow was killed in Japan for human consumption! The chains around this memorial were a gift from the US Navy. Where do you suppose the Japanese got the idea to eat beef? The year? 1930.
Cunningham found a highly significant positive correlation between deaths from lymphomas and beef and dairy ingestion in the 15 countries analysed. A few quotations from his article follow:
The average intake of protein in many countries is far in excess of the recommended requirements. Excessive consumption of animal protein may be one co-factor in the causation of lymphomas by acting in the following manner. Ingestion of certain proteins results in the adsorption of antigenic fragments through the gastrointestinal mucous membrane.
This results in chronic stimulation of lymphoid tissue to which these fragments gain access "Chronic immunological stimulation causes lymphomas in laboratory animals and is believed to cause lymphoid cancers in men." The gastrointestinal mucous membrane is only a partial barrier to the absorption of food antigens, and circulating antibodies to food protein is commonplace especially potent lymphoid stimulants. Ingestion of cows' milk can produce generalized lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and profound adenoid hypertrophy. It has been conservatively estimated that more than 100 distinct antigens are released by the normal digestion of cows' milk which evoke production of all antibody classes [This may explain why pasteurized, killed viruses are still antigenic and can still cause disease.
Here's more. A large prospective study from Norway was reported in the British Journal of Cancer 61 (3):456-9, March 1990. (Almost 16,000 individuals were followed for 11 and a half years). For most cancers there was no association between the tumour and milk ingestion. However, in lymphoma, there was a strong positive association. If one drank two glasses or more daily (or the equivalent in dairy products), the odds were 3.4 times greater than in persons drinking less than one glass of developing a lymphoma.
There are two other cow-related diseases that you should be aware of. At this time they are not known to be spread by the use of dairy products and are not known to involve man. The first is bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and the second is the bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). The first of these diseases, we hope, is confined to England and causes cavities in the animal's brain. Sheep have long been known to suffer from a disease called scrapie. It seems to have been started by the feeding of contaminated sheep parts, especially brains, to the British cows. Now, use your good sense. Do cows seem like carnivores? Should they eat meat? This profit-motivated practice backfired and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or Mad Cow Disease, swept Britain. The disease literally causes dementia in the unfortunate animal and is 100 per cent incurable. To date, over 100,000 cows have been incinerated in England in keeping with British law. Four hundred to 500 cows are reported as infected each month. The British public is concerned and has dropped its beef consumption by 25 per cent, while some 2,000 schools have stopped serving beef to children. Several farmers have developed a fatal disease syndrome that resembles both BSE and CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob- Disease). But the British Veterinary Association says that transmission of BSE to humans is "remote."
The USDA agrees that the British epidemic was due to the feeding of cattle with bonemeal or animal protein produced at rendering plants from the carcasses of scrapie-infected sheep. The have prohibited the importation of live cattle and zoo ruminants from Great Britain and claim that the disease does not exist in the United States. However, there may be a problem. "Downer cows" are animals who arrive at auction yards or slaughter houses dead, trampled, lacerated, dehydrated, or too ill from viral or bacterial diseases to walk. Thus they are "down." If they cannot respond to electrical shocks by walking, they are dragged by chains to dumpsters and transported to rendering plants where, if they are not already dead, they are killed. Even a "humane" death is usually denied them. They are then turned into protein food for animals as well as other preparations. Minks that have been fed this protein have developed a fatal encephalopathy that has some resemblance to BSE. Entire colonies of minks have been lost in this manner, particularly in Wisconsin. It is feared that the infective agent is a prion or slow virus possible obtained from the ill "downer cows."
The British Medical Journal in an editorial whimsically entitled "How Now Mad Cow?" (BMJ vol. 304, 11 Apr. 1992:929- 30) describes cases of BSE in species not previously known to be affected, such as cats. They admit that produce contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy entered the human food chain in England between 1986 and 1989. They say. "The result of this experiment is awaited." As the incubation period can be up to three decades, wait we must.
The immunodeficency virus is seen in cattle in the United States and is more worrisome. Its structure is closely related to that of the human AIDS virus. At this time we do not know if exposure to the raw BIV proteins can cause the sera of humans to become positive for HIV. The extent of the virus among American herds is said to be "widespread". (The USDA refuses to inspect the meat and milk to see if antibodies to this retrovirus is present). It also has no plans to quarantine the infected animals. As in the case of humans with AIDS, there is no cure for BIV in cows. Each day we consume beef and diary products from cows infected with these viruses and no scientific assurance exists that the products are safe. Eating raw beef (as in steak Tartare) strikes me as being very risky, especially after the Seattle E. coli deaths of 1993.
A report in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research, October 1992, Vol. 56 pp.353-359 and another from the Russian literature, tell of a horrifying development. They report the first detection in human serum of the antibody to a bovine immunodeficiency virus protein. In addition to this disturbing report, is another from Russia telling us of the presence of virus proteins related to the bovine leukemia virus in 5 of 89 women with breast disease (Acta Virologica Feb. 1990 34(1): 19-26). The implications of these developments are unknown at present. However, it is safe to assume that these animal viruses are unlikely to "stay" in the animal kingdom.
OTHER CANCERS--DOES IT GET WORSE?
Unfortunately it does. Ovarian cancer--a particularly nasty tumour--was associated with milk consumption by workers at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, New York. Drinking more than one glass of whole milk or equivalent daily gave a woman a 3.1 times risk over non-milk users. They felt that the reduced fat milk products helped reduce the risk. This association has been made repeatedly by numerous investigators.
Another important study, this from the Harvard Medical School, analyzed data from 27 countries mainly from the 1970s. Again a significant positive correlation is revealed between ovarian cancer and per capita milk consumption. These investigators feel that the lactose component of milk is the responsible fraction, and the digestion of this is facilitated by the persistence of the ability to digest the lactose (lactose persistence) - a little different emphasis, but the same conclusion. This study was reported in the American Journal of Epidemiology 130 (5): 904-10 Nov. 1989. These articles come from two of the country's leading institutions, not the Rodale Press or Prevention Magazine.
Even lung cancer has been associated with milk ingestion? The beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 controls again at Roswell Park were studied in the International Journal of Cancer, April 15, 1989. Persons drinking whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk when compared to those never drinking whole milk.
For many years we have been watching the lung cancer rates for Japanese men who smoke far more than American or European men but who develop fewer lung cancers. Workers in this research area feel that the total fat intake is the difference.
There are not many reports studying an association between milk ingestion and prostate cancer. One such report though was of great interest. This is from the Roswell Park Memorial Institute and is found in Cancer 64 (3): 605-12, 1989. They analyzed the diets of 371 prostate cancer patients and comparable control subjects:
Men who reported drinking three or more glasses of whole milk daily had a relative risk of 2.49 compared with men who reported never drinking whole milk the weight of the evidence appears to favour the hypothesis that animal fat is related to increased risk of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in US men and is the second leading cause of cancer mortality.
WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?
Is there any health reason at all for an adult human to drink cows' milk?
It's hard for me to come up with even one good reason other than simple preference. But if you try hard, in my opinion, these would be the best two: milk is a source of calcium and it's a source of amino acids (proteins).
Let's look at the calcium first. Why are we concerned at all about calcium? Obviously, we intend it to build strong bones and protect us against osteoporosis. And no doubt about it, milk is loaded with calcium. But is it a good calcium source for humans? I think not. These are the reasons. Excessive amounts of dairy products actually interfere with calcium absorption. Secondly, the excess of protein that the milk provides is a major cause of the osteoporosis problem. Dr. H egsted in England has been writing for years about the geographical distribution of osteoporosis. It seems that the countries with the highest intake of dairy products are invariably the countries with the most osteoporosis. He feels that milk is a cause of osteoporosis. Reasons to be given below.
Numerous studies have shown that the level of calcium ingestion and especially calcium supplementation has no effect whatever on the development of osteoporosis. The most important such article appeared recently in the British Journal of Medicine where the long arm of our dairy industry can't reach. Another study in the United States actually showed a worsening in calcium balance in post-menopausal women given three 8-ounce glasses of cows' milk per day. (Am. Journal of Clin. Nutrition, 1985). The effects of hormone, gender, weight bearing on the axial bones, and in particular protein intake, are critically important. Another observation that may be helpful to our analysis is to note the absence of any recorded dietary deficiencies of calcium among people living on a natural diet without milk.
For the key to the osteoporosis riddle, donÂ’t look at calcium, look at protein. Consider these two contrasting groups. Eskimos have an exceptionally high protein intake estimated at 25 percent of total calories. They also have a high calcium intake at 2,500 mg/day. Their osteoporosis is among the worst in the world. The other instructive group are the Bantus of South Africa. They have a 12 percent protein diet, mostly p lant protein, and only 200 to 350 mg/day of calcium, about half our women's intake. The women have virtually no osteoporosis despite bearing six or more children and nursing them for prolonged periods! When African women immigrate to the United States, do they develop osteoporosis? The answer is yes, but not quite are much as Caucasian or Asian women. Thus, there is a genetic difference that is modified by diet.
To answer the obvious question, "Well, where do you get your calcium?" The answer is: "From exactly the same place the cow gets the calcium, from green things that grow in the ground," mainly from leafy vegetables. After all, elephants and rhinos develop their huge bones (after being weaned) by eating green leafy plants, so do horses. Carnivorous animals also do quite nicely without leafy plants. It seems that all of earth's mammals do well if they live in harmony with their genetic programming and natural food. Only humans living an affluent life style have rampant osteoporosis.
If animal references do not convince you, think of the several billion humans on this earth who have never seen cows' milk. Wouldn't you think osteoporosis would be prevalent in this huge group? The dairy people would suggest this but the truth is exactly the opposite. They have far less than that seen in the countries where dairy products are commonly consumed. It is the subject of another paper, but the truly significant determinants of osteoporosis are grossly excessive protein intakes and lack of weight bearing on long bones, both taking place over decades. Hormones play a secondary, but not trivial role in women. Milk is a deterrent to good bone health.
THE PROTEIN MYTH
Remember when you were a kid and the adults all told you to "make sure you get plenty of good protein". Protein was the nutritional "good guy”" when I was young. And of course milk is fitted right in.
As regards protein, milk is indeed a rich source of protein- -"liquid meat," remember? However that isn't necessarily what we need. In actual fact it is a source of difficulty. Nearly all Americans eat too much protein.
For this information we rely on the most authoritative source that I am aware of. This is the latest edition (1oth, 1989: 4th printing, Jan. 1992) of the Recommended Dietary Allowances produced by the National Research Council. Of interest, the current editor of this important work is Dr. Richard Havel of the University of California in San Francisco.
First to be noted is that the recommended protein has been steadily revised downward in successive editions. The current recommendation is 0.75 g/kilo/day for adults 19 through 51 years. This, of course, is only 45 grams per day for the mythical 60 kilogram adult. You should also know that the WHO estimated the need for protein in adults to by .6g/kilo per day. (All RDA's are calculated with large safety allowances in case you're the type that wants to add some more to "be sure.") You can "get by" on 28 to 30 grams a day if necessary!
Now 45 grams a day is a tiny amount of protein. That's an ounce and a half! Consider too, that the protein does not have to be animal protein. Vegetable protein is identical for all practical purposes and has no cholesterol and vastly less saturated fat. (Do not be misled by the antiquated belief that plant proteins must be carefully balanced to avoid deficiencies. This is not a realistic concern.) Therefore virtually all Americans, Canadians, British and European people are in a protein overloaded state. This has serious consequences when maintained over decades. The problems are the already mentioned osteoporosis, atherosclerosis and kidney damage. There is good evidence that certain malignancies, chiefly colon and rectal, are related to excessive meat intake. Barry Brenner, an eminent renal physiologist was the first to fully point out the dangers of excess protein for the kidney tubule. The dangers of the fat and cholesterol are known to all. Finally, you should know that the protein content of human milk is amount the lowest (0.9%) in mammals.
IS THAT ALL OF THE TROUBLE?
Sorry, there's more. Remember lactose? This is the principal carbohydrate of milk. It seems that nature provides new- borns with the enzymatic equipment to metabolize lactose, but this ability often extinguishes by age 4 or 5 years.
What is the problem with lactose or milk sugar? It seems that it is a disaccharide which is too large to be absorbed into the blood stream without first being broken down into monosaccharides, namely galactose and glucose. This requires the presence of an enzyme, lactase plus additional enzymes to break down the galactose into glucose.
Let's think about his for a moment. Nature gives us the ability to metabolize lactose for a few years and then shuts off the mechanism. Is Mother Nature trying to tell us something? Clearly all infants must drink milk. The fact that so many adults cannot seems to be related to the tendency for nature to abandon mechanisms that are not needed. At least half of the adult humans on this earth are lactose intolerant. It was not until the relatively recent introduction of dairy herding and the ability to "borrow" milk from another group of mammals that the survival advantage of preserving lactase (the enzyme that allows us to digest lactose) became evident. But why would it be advantageous to drink cows' milk? After all, most of the human beings in the history of the world did. And further, why was it just the white or light skinned humans who retained this knack while the pigmented people tended to lose it?
Some students of evolution feel that white skin is a fairly recent innovation, perhaps not more than 20,000 or 30,000 years old. It clearly has to do with the Northward migration of early man to cold and relatively sunless areas when skins and clothing became available. Fair skin allows the production of Vitamin D from sunlight more readily than does dark skin. However, when only the face was exposed to sunlight that area of fair skin was insufficient to provide the vitamin D from sunlight. If dietary and sunlight sources were poorly available, the ability to use the abundant calcium in cows' milk would give a survival advantage to humans who could digest that milk. This seems to be the only logical explanation for fair skinned humans having a high degree of lactose tolerance when compared to dark skinned people.
How does this break down? Certain racial groups, namely blacks are up to 90% lactose intolerant as adults. Caucasians are 20 to 40% lactose intolerant. Orientals are midway between the above two groups. Diarrhea, gas and abdominal cramps are the results of substantial milk intake in such persons. Most American Indians cannot tolerate milk. The milk industry admits that lactose intolerance plays intestinal havoc with as many as 50 million Americans. A lactose-intolerance industry has sprung up and had sales of $117 million in 1992 (Time May 17, 1993.)
What if you are lactose-intolerant and lust after dairy products? Is all lost? Not at all. It seems that lactose is largely digested by bacteria and you will be able to enjoy your cheese despite lactose intolerance. Yogurt is similar in this respect. Finally, and I could never have dreamed this up, geneticists want to splice genes to alter the composition of milk (Am J Clin Nutr 1993 Suppl 302s).
One could quibble and say that milk is totally devoid of fiber content and that its habitual use will predispose to constipation and bowel disorders.
The association with anemia and occult intestinal bleeding in infants is known to all physicians. This is chiefly from its lack of iron and its irritating qualities for the intestinal mucosa. The pediatric literature abounds with articles describing irritated intestinal lining, bleeding, increased permeability as well as colic, diarrhea and vomiting in cows'milk-sensitive babies. The anemia gets a double push by loss of blood and iron as well as deficiency of iron in the cows' milk. Milk is also the leading cause of childhood allergy.

Everyone must see this

A bus arrived on November first. I will not say from which part of Athens. On November first, Saint David is celebrated. The priest and abou...