Syrians attacked with chemical weapons in Aleppo, say reports

Both the Syrian government and the terrorists groups in charge of the conflict in Syria deny using chemical weapons

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 19, 2013

The Syrian government accused rebel militias that vie for control of the country of using chemical weapons in an attack in the southern province of Aleppo. According to the Information Ministry of Syria, 16 people died as a result of the attack.

In previous weeks and months, Western military forces issued a warning about the use of chemical weapons on the civilian population, with U.S. President Barack H. Obama threatening military action if Assad attacked his own people. This attack may then be the beginning of a set up by Western supported insurgents to create an excuse for a full invasion of Syria.

Syrian Information Minister, Omran Al Zoabi, said on Tuesday that the rebels used chemical weapons in an attack on Aleppo in which, in addition to the 16 deaths, mostly civilians, there were at least 86 wounded, mostly in critical condition. “This is a dangerous escalation,” said Al Zoabi on state television in an interview in which he said that Turkey and Qatar, official supporters of the rebels, are responsible for the “legal, moral and political” consequences of the attack.

Several rebel groups rejected the accusations on Tuesday and instead accused the regime of being responsible for the launch of a Scud missile loaded with these materials. “We have no long-range missiles or chemical weapons. If we had them, we would not employ civilians as a target,” said military spokesman Istanbul Lobre Sirius, Louay Muqdad, to AFP.

The regime has, in addition to conventional arsenals, vast reserves of sarin, mustard gas and cyanide. One of the concerns of the international community is that either the regime used these chemical weapons or that terrorists groups linked to the rebels and al-Qaeda in Syria who were brought to fight the Assad regime, get their hands on chemicals weapons handed out to them by Western supporters.

The news agency SANA did not specify what type of chemical weapon were used by the rebels, who the Assad regime has been fighting for over two years and that is composed by terrorists brought in from Jordan, Turkey, Qatar and other neighboring countries. The Syrian war, in which the West is heavily invested, has already claimed the life of more than 70,000 people and caused one of the largest migrations of refugees –more than one million– in the region.

Last week, the head of Israeli military intelligence, Brigadier General Aviv Kochavi, told a conference that he believes Assad is preparing for the use of its chemical arsenals. “Assad retains control over chemical weapons, air force and military equipment from Syria. Assad is making preparations to use these chemical weapons. He has not yet given the order, but is preparing for it,” he said. Israel is said to have requested that the United States attacks Syrian sites where they believe the Assad regime houses its military arsenal.

In August, U.S. President Barack Obama, who tomorrow will visit Israel, warned the Syrian government that if it used chemical weapons against its own people it would face a U.S. military intervention. Until today, the prospect of a chemical attack from the part of the Assad regime has been null, and continues to be, but the use of chemical weapons against civilians –either by Assad or the rebels– is the perfect excuse to invade the country with foreign troops. Several attempts by the United States and some European countries to drive through United Nations resolutions to attack Syria have failed due to the vetoes by Russia and China.

U.S. Government Chemically Attacked St. Louis during Cold War

Attacks focused on poor neighborhoods populated by minorities.

By JIM SALTER | AP | OCTOBER 4, 2012

Government said it was an experiment to ”protect” people a Russian attack.

Doris Spates was a baby when her father died inexplicably in 1955. She has watched four siblings die of cancer, and she survived cervical cancer.

After learning that the Army conducted secret chemical testing in her impoverished St. Louis neighborhood at the height of the Cold War, she wonders if her own government is to blame.

In the mid-1950s, and again a decade later, the Army used motorized blowers atop a low-income housing high-rise, at schools and from the backs of station wagons to send a potentially dangerous compound into the already-hazy air in predominantly black areas of St. Louis.

Local officials were told at the time that the government was testing a smoke screen that could shield St. Louis from aerial observation in case the Russians attacked.

But in 1994, the government said the tests were part of a biological weapons program and St. Louis was chosen because it bore some resemblance to Russian cities that the U.S. might attack. The material being sprayed was zinc cadmium sulfide, a fine fluorescent powder.

Now, new research is raising greater concern about the implications of those tests. St. Louis Community College-Meramec sociology professor Lisa Martino-Taylor’s research has raised the possibility that the Army performed radiation testing by mixing radioactive particles with the zinc cadmium sulfide, though she concedes there is no direct proof.

But her report, released late last month, was troubling enough that both U.S. senators from Missouri wrote to Army Secretary John McHugh demanding answers.

Read Full Article →

Hollande Blesses Attack on Syria

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | AUGUST 28, 2012

French President François Hollande has said that if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, resorted to chemical weapons, it would be enough to justify an intervention by the international community.

In early August, rumors of Assad moving chemical weapons to undisclosed locations surged on the main stream media, but no facts to support such assertion were provided. This is the same kind of rhetoric presented on the media before the United States attacked Iraq. Back then, the US government and the intelligence community assured the world that Saddam Hussein was hiding and was prepared to use chemical weapons, which he transported continuously in mobile truck labs. Expect some western intelligence agency or supposed Syrian defector to “show proof” that Assad is using chemical weapons on the Syrian population, a move that will most likely mean an attack on that country.

“We remain very vigilant with our allies to prevent the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, which for the international community would be a legitimate cause for a direct intervention,” said Hollande in his opening speech of the twentieth annual conference of French ambassadors.

Hollande said he is aware of “the difficulty of the work” and the risks involved, but felt that the situation is beyond the scope Syrian security concerns in the Middle East, and “in particular the independence and stability of Lebanon”. While the US supported militias are going around Syria causing mayhem and death, Mr. Hollande has publicly given his support for war against Syria, but said nothing about the US and Turkey stirring conflict against the people of Syria.

“Assad must go. Continues with unusual violence massacring the population, destroying cities, killing women and children. It’s intolerable and unacceptable and against all human consciousness for the security and stability in the region,” he said in that speech.

Hollande also considered to be a recourse of the International Criminal Tribunal to try the perpetrators of crimes in Syria. Needless to say he wasn’t referring to the United States or its terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. He then said that Syrian people must overcome obstacles within the Security Council of the UN, whose capacity is weakened in its view blocking by Russia and China. Both countries have opposed every single unjustified attempt to approve an attack on both Syria and Iran.

“We will press as long as necessary at the Council to reach a consensus in the international community. But immediately, we must act,” he added.

Hollande went on to say that France called on the Syrian opposition to constitute a provisional and representative government, that could eventually become the legitimate government of the new Syria. He urged France’s Arab partners to help them in that way. Hollande said that France would recognize when that government was formed. Mr. Hollande again shows his lack of respect for the will of the Syrian people, even though he says the goal of a military intervention would be their benefit. As we have reported, most of the Syrians are in favor of the current government, and not the other way around. But even if that wasn’t the case, the logical way to take Assad out of office would not include the intervention of foreign invaders.

Hollande said his country also supports those who work on the field for a Free, democratic Syria, which is respectful of human rights and that guarantees the safety of all communities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what he is trying to destroy by supporting the western-led rebel groups who are killing hundreds of Syrians in the name of the country’s liberation.

United States Gauges Sending 50,000 troops to Syria

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | AUGUST 17, 2012

While the Obama regime actively participates in the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad’s government, by aiding rebel groups and proxy governments to carry out a shadow war against Syria, the US government is also considering invading the country by putting 50,000 to 60,000 soldiers on the ground to “safeguard” the chemical weapons stockpile.

Main stream media accused the Syrian government of illegally moving chemical weapons to publicly undisclosed locations in the country, while the US allies on Syrian soil attack government forces in a struggle to gain control of the most important cities. The movement of the weapons, say corporate news outlets, is being done in preparation to carry out attacks on the Syrian people, should the country get attacked by western nations or their allies in the region. As expected, no media outlet has shown any proof that the Assad-led government has used or intends to use such weapons on its own people.

The discussion to invade Syria at any point, should the western invaders think that the chemical stockpiles “are in danger” has been extended to United States allies, who are debating their answer to the fall of the government of Bashar al-Assad, if the country’s security forces were to disintegrate. This exact scenario is what the rebel groups supported financially and militarily by the US government intend to carry out, the destabilization of the government in order to take the country over. The non invasion of US or other foreign forces would mean that the rebels would get a hold of the chemical and biological weapons that Damascus has, as reported by official sources. Isn’t that a win win situation? You cause the fall of a country to have an excuse to invade it and to keep everything in it.

Ultimately, the US is not even interested in the chemical or biological weapons in Assad’s hands, but on the existent resources the country has. In the worst case scenario, the US is considering the deployment of 50,000 to 60,000 troops to secure the stockpiles. The hypothesis that part in the talks is that, in the event that the security forces disintegrated, those stockpiles would be subjected to pillage and plunder.

The US is saying that the sites where Syria now keeps its weapons would not be bombed due to the danger that the chemicals represent for the people and the environment. That is another good excuse to promote the invasion as a better idea than to bomb the country from above while the rebels do the dirty work on the ground. It sure wasn’t the same kind of thinking when the same people in control of the US government today decided to bomb Vietnam with Agent Orange, or to use depleted uranium in Iraq. No worries about the people or the environment there.

Sources have said the United States still does not have among its plans to deploy troops in Syria and that the Pentagon has rejected the possibility of implementing a no-fly zone in the near future. The same information was reported by the Israeli daily Haaretz. “There is no imminent plan to deploy ground troops. This is, in fact, a much worse scenario,” added an official source, while he pointed out that U.S. troops probably would play a role in the mission if it came to an invasion.

In addition, two U.S. diplomatic sources have said that a force of 60,000 troops would not be enough for a peacekeeping mission and would be only the number of troops needed to secure the stockpiles. Therefore, it would have added the deployment of troops needed to support that effort.

Finally, the Diplomats have said that several European countries have already said they would not join such action if it were the case. Meanwhile, neither the White House nor the Pentagon have commented on this information, although the White House spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said the United States believes that chemical weapons are under government control.

He said that “due to the escalating violence in Syria and the increasing attacks of the regime against the population, there is concern about these weapons.” In addition to monitoring the arsenals, we are consulting with Syrian neighbors — and with our friends in the international community — to underscore our common concern about the safety of these weapons and the Syrian Government’s obligation to ensure their safety,” he concluded.

Pharmacists getting Cancer from dispensing Chemotherapy Chemicals

Natural News

One of the side effects of chemotherapy is, ironically, cancer. The cancer doctors don’t say much about it, but it’s printed right on the chemo drug warning labels (in small print, of course). If you go into a cancer treatment clinic with one type of cancer, and you allow yourself to be injected with chemotherapy chemicals, you will often develop a second type of cancer as a result. Your oncologist will often claim to have successfully treated your first cancer even while you develop a second or third cancer directly caused by the chemo used to treat the original cancer.

There’s nothing like cancer-causing chemotherapy to boost repeat business, huh?

During all this, the pharmacists are peddling these toxic chemotherapy chemicals to their customers as if they were medicine (which they aren’t). While preparing these toxic chemical prescriptions, it turns out that pharmacists are exposing themselves to cancer-causing chemotherapy agents in the process. And because of that, pharmacists are giving themselves cancer… and they’re dying from it.

Why pharmacists are dying of cancer?

People who live in glass houses should never throw stones, they say. And you might similarly say that pharmacists who deal in poison shouldn’t be surprised to one day discover they are killing themselves with it.

Chemotherapy drugs are extremely toxic to the human body, and they are readily absorbed through the skin. The very idea that they are even used in modern medicine is almost laughable if it weren’t so downright disturbing and sad that hundreds of thousands of people are killed each year around the world by chemotherapy drugs.

Now you can add pharmacists to that statistic. For decades, they simply looked the other way, pretending they were playing a valuable role in our system of “modern” medicine, not admitting they were actually doling out chemicals that killed people. Now, the sobering truth has struck them hard: They are in the business of death, and it is killing them off, one by one.

The Seattle Times now reports the story of Sue Crump, a veteran pharmacist of two decades who spent much of her time dispensing chemotherapy drugs. Sue died last September of pancreatic cancer, and one of her dying wishes was that the truth would be told about how her on-the-job exposure to chemotherapy chemicals contributed to her own cancer.

Second-hand chemo

The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA), it turns out, does not regulate workplace exposure to toxic, cancer-causing chemotherapy chemicals. At first glance, that seems surprising, since OSHA regulates workplace exposure to far less harmful chemicals. Why not chemo?

The answer is because the toxicity of chemotherapy has long been ignored by virtually everyone in medicine and the federal government. It has always been assumed harmless or even “safe” just because it’s used as a kind of far-fetched “medicine” to treat cancer. This, despite the fact that chemotherapy is a derivative of the mustard gas used against enemy soldiers in World War I. Truthfully, chemotherapy has more in common with chemicals weapons than any legitimate medicine.

So today, while workers are protected from secondhand smoke in offices across the country, pharmacists are still being exposed every single day to toxic, cancer-causing chemicals that OSHA seems to just ignore. The agency has only issued one citation in the last decade to a hospital for inadequate safety handling of toxic chemotherapy drugs.

As the Seattle Times reports, “A just-completed study from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) — 10 years in the making and the largest to date — confirms that chemo continues to contaminate the work spaces where it’s used and in some cases is still being found in the urine of those who handle it…”

That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50’s, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50’s, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40’s, now dead)

The great contradiction in cancer treatments

As the Seattle Times reports:

“Danish epidemiologists used cancer-registry data from the 1940s through the late 1980s to first report a significantly increased risk of leukemia among oncology nurses and, later, physicians. Last year, another Danish study of more than 92,000 nurses found an elevated risk for breast, thyroid, nervous-system and brain cancers.”

The story goes on to report how new safety rules are being put in place across the industry to protect pharmacists, veterinarians, nurses and doctors from toxic chemotherapy chemicals. But even the Seattle Times, which deserves credit for running this story, misses the bigger point:

If these chemicals are so dangerous to the doctors, nurses and pharmacists dispensing them, how can they be considered “safe enough” to inject into patients who are already dying from cancer?

It’s a serious question. After all, if nurses can become violently ill after merely spilling chemotherapy chemicals on themselves (it’s true), then what effect do you suppose these chemicals have when injected into patients?

The cancer industry, though, has never stopped injecting patients long enough to ask the commonsense question: Why are we in the business of dispensing poison in the first place? Poison, after all, isn’t medicine. Not when dispensed in its full potency, anyway.

The whole idea of “safety” in the cancer industry is to find new ways to protect the health care workers from the extremely dangerous chemicals they’re still injecting into the bodies of patients. Something is clearly wrong with this picture… if health care workers need to be protected from this stuff, why not protect the patients from it, too?

Nobody ever died from handling herbs

In contrast to all this, consider the truthful observation that no naturopath ever died from handling medicinal herb, homeopathy remedies or nutritional supplements. These natural therapies are good for patients, and as a bonus, you don’t have to wear a chemical suit to handle them.

Furthermore, medicinal herbs, supplements and natural remedies don’t cause cancer. They support and protect the immune system rather than destroying it. So they make patients healthier and more resilient rather than weaker and fragile.

But herbs, supplements and natural remedies don’t earn much money for the cancer industry. Only the highly-toxic patented chemotherapy drugs bring in the big bucks. So that’s what they deal in — poison for the patients. And when you deal in poison, some of it always splashes back onto you.

Chemotherapy doesn’t work

Beyond this whole issue of pharmacists and health care workers dying from exposure to secondhand chemotherapy, there’s the issue of whether chemotherapy actually works in the first place. Scientifically speaking, if you take a good, hard look at what the published studies actually say, chemotherapy is only effective at treating less than two percent of the cancers that exist. And that two percent does not include breast cancer or prostate cancer.

Yet chemotherapy is routinely used to “treat” breast cancer even though it offers no benefit to breast cancer patients. In effect, the cancer industry is engaged in a criminal treatment hoax that promises to make you healthier but actually gives you even more cancer — which is great for repeat business, but terrible for the cancer patients who suffer under it.

The level of quackery at work right now in the cancer industry is simply astonishing. You would think that if doctors and pharmacists were dishing out these chemicals to patients, they would make sure there was some sort of legitimate science to back them up. But they haven’t. The science doesn’t exist. Chemotherapy doesn’t work at anything other than causing cancer — and it accomplishes that indiscriminately, damaging any person it comes into contact with. Merely touching chemotherapy chemicals is dangerous for your health.

So if you’re considering chemotherapy for yourself, think about this long and hard: If chemotherapy is so dangerous that it’s giving the pharmacists cancer just from touching it, why on earth would you want to inject it into your body?

This is not an idle question. It is perhaps the most important question of all for someone considering conventional cancer treatment using chemotherapy. The question is essentially this: If chemotherapy causes cancer, how can it treat cancer?

Treating cancer with chemotherapy is like treating alcoholism with vodka. It’s like treating heart disease with cheese, or like treating diabetes with high-fructose corn syrup. Cancer cannot be cured by the very thing that causes it.

And to those who deal in poison, watch out for the cause-and-effect laws of biology. If you deal in chemotherapy chemicals, don’t be surprised if you get cancer one day. If you deal in chemical pesticides, don’t be surprised if you get Alzheimer’s. If you’re a dentist installing mercury fillings in the mouths of clients, don’t be surprised if one day you just go stark raving mad (because mercury causes insanity, and dentists breathe in mercury vapor thrown into the air from their drills).

If you work around chemicals, they will eventually impact your health, and never in a good way. There’s a karmic element in all this, too: If you spend your life dishing out chemotherapy drugs as a pharmacist, you have a lot to answer for. You have been an enabler of a very real chemical holocaust against the people. Don’t be surprised if that holocaust turns against you one day. Karma tends to work that way. Cause and effect is a universal law that cannot be escaped.

And if you’re a cancer patient, I urge you to think twice about the toxicity of anything you might allow in your body. If you are trying to HEAL your body, why would you allow yourself to be poisoned with a chemical that causes cancer?

Don’t let some cancer doctor talk you into chemotherapy using his fear tactics. They’re good at that. So next time he insists that you take some chemotherapy, ask him to drink some first. If your oncologist isn’t willing to drink chemotherapy in front of you to prove it’s safe, why on earth would you agree to have it injected in your body?