Advertisements

U.S. Drones violate Pakistan’s Sovereignty

By SEBASTIAN ABBOT | AP | MARCH 15, 2013

The head of a U.N. team investigating casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan declared after a secret research trip to the country that the attacks violate Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Ben Emmerson, the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, said the Pakistani government made clear to him that it does not consent to the strikes – a position that has been disputed by U.S. officials.

President Barack Obama has stepped up covert CIA drone strikes targeting al-Qaida and Taliban militants in Pakistan’s tribal region along the Afghan border since he took office in 2009.

The strikes have caused growing controversy because of the secrecy surrounding them and claims that they have caused significant civilian casualties – allegations denied by the United States.

According to a U.N. statement that Emmerson emailed to The Associated Press on Friday, the Pakistani government told him it has confirmed at least 400 civilian deaths by U.S. drones on its territory. The statement was initially released on Thursday, following the investigator’s three-day visit to Pakistan, which ended Wednesday. The visit was kept secret until Emmerson left.

Imtiaz Gul, an expert on Pakistani militancy who is helping Emmerson’s team, said Friday that the organization he runs, the Centre for Research and Security Studies, gave the U.N. investigator during his visit case studies on 25 strikes that allegedly killed around 200 civilians.

The U.N. investigation into civilian casualties from drone strikes and other targeted killings in Pakistan and several other countries was launched in January and is expected to deliver its conclusions in October.

The U.S. rarely discusses the strikes in public because of their covert nature. But a few senior officials, including CIA chief John Brennan, have publicly defended the strikes, saying precision weapons help avoid significant civilian casualties.

A 2012 investigation by the AP into 10 of the recent deadliest drone strikes in Pakistan over the previous two years found that a significant majority of the casualties were militants, but civilians were also killed.

Villagers told the AP that of at least 194 people killed in the attacks, about 70 percent – at least 138 – were militants. The remaining 56 were either civilians or tribal police, and 38 of them were killed in a single attack on March 17, 2011.

Pakistani officials regularly criticize the attacks in public as a violation of the country’s sovereignty, a popular position in a country where anti-American sentiment runs high.

But the reality has been more complicated in the past.

For many years, Pakistan allowed U.S. drones to take off from bases within the country. Documents released by WikiLeaks in 2010 showed that senior Pakistani officials consented to the strikes in private to U.S. diplomats, while at the same time condemning them in public.

Cooperation has certainly waned since then as the relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. has deteriorated. In 2011, Pakistan kicked the U.S. out of an air base used by American drones in the country’s southwest, in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

But U.S. officials have insisted that cooperation has not ended altogether and key Pakistani military officers and civilian politicians continue to consent to the strikes. The officials have spoken on condition of anonymity because of the covert nature of the drone program.

However, Emmerson, the U.N. investigator, came away with a black and white view after his meetings with Pakistani officials.

“The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear,” said Emmerson. “It does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

The drone campaign “involves the use of force on the territory of another state without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty,” he said.

Pakistan claimed the drone strikes were radicalizing a new generation of militants and said it was capable of fighting the war against Islamist extremism in the country by itself, said Emmerson.

A major reason why the U.S. has stepped up drone attacks in Pakistan is because it has failed to convince the government to target Taliban militants using its territory to launch cross-border attacks against American troops in Afghanistan.

Emmerson met with a variety of Pakistani officials during his visit, as well as tribal leaders from the North Waziristan tribal area – the main target for U.S. drones in the country – and locals who claimed they were injured by the attacks or had lost loved ones.

The tribal leaders said innocent tribesmen were often mistakenly targeted by drones because they were indistinguishable from Taliban militants, said Emmerson. Both groups wear the same traditional tribal clothing and normally carry a gun at all times, he said.

“It is time for the international community to heed the concerns of Pakistan, and give the next democratically elected government of Pakistan the space, support and assistance it needs to deliver a lasting peace on its own territory without forcible military interference by other states,” said Emmerson.

Advertisements

White House secret memos kept secret to conceal government crimes

By MICHAEL KELLEY | BUSINESS INSIDER | FEBRUARY 24, 2013

The Obama administration’s classified legal memos justifying targeted killings contain potentially shady protocols with foreign governments and “case-specific” details of strikes, two sources aware of their contents told Krisitn Roberts and Michael Hirsch of the National Journal.

The accords with foreign governments — which include Pakistan and Yemen — are a key element excluded from the Department of Justice (DoJ) “white paper.”

A legal expert outside the government “who is intimately familiar with the contents of the memos” told the Journal that targeted-killing memos written by the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) are being withheld to protect this information.

The Senate and House intelligence committees have only been allowed to examine four of the nine OLC memos.

The expert told the Journal that the administration believes Congress would leak the information to the public, which could be extremely embarrassing to the U.S. and its foreign partners given the unpopularity of the drone program and any legal or ethical liberties taken in the agreements.

The DoJ white paper summarized the legal reasoning behind targeting U.S. citizens abroad if they are believed to be senior leaders of al-Qaeda or “an associated force,” even if there is no evidence of an imminent plot against the U.S.

A former State Department legal counsel told the Journal that even if the memos contain secret protocols, there’s no reason why that information couldn’t be “redacted” and the rest of the memos released.

The legal expert noted that it’s unclear how many secret government-to-government protocols exist, but leaders of Algeria and Mali may have signed agreements.

Smoke, Mirrors, and the “Disappearance” of Polio

THE REAL AGENDA | FEBRUARY 19, 2013

The following video presents testimony from Suzanne Humphries, MD, Internist and Nephrologist speaking on Polio at the Association of Natural Health Conference, November 2012.

You can get more information about Dr. Suzanne Humphries here.

News tip by VacTruth.com

References

Additional Bibliography (Other references in slides)
Suzanne Humphries, 2012, Polio lecture. AONH

NFIP quote on firing scientists:
Marks H., A conversation with Paul Meier, Clin Trials. 2004: (1) 131 ‐138 PMID:16281468

Boulianne N,Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001 Nov;20(11):1087‐8.
Most ten‐year‐old children with negative or unknown histories of chickenpox are immune. PMID:11734718

Neel JV et. al, 1964. “Studies on the Xavante Indians of the Brazilian Mato Grosso.”Am J Hum Genet, Mar;16:52‐140 PMID 14131874

Breastmilk stem cells:
Hassiotou F Breastmilk is a novel source of stem cells with multilineage differentiation potential. Stem Cells. 2012 Oct;30(10):2164‐74.

Other Breastfeeding:
Hanson LA Session 1: Feeding and infant development breast‐feeding and immune function. Proc Nutr Soc. 2007 Aug;66(3):384‐96.

Newburg DS. Innate immunity and human milk. J Nutr. 2005 May;135(5):1308‐12.

Isaacs Charles, Human Milk Inactivates Pathogens, Individually, Additively and Synergistically. J Nut. May 2005 135, 5 pp1286‐88.

Provocation polio:
many more references available:

‐Gromeier, M, Mechanism of Injury‐Provoked Poliomyelitis. J Virology, 1998, 5056‐
5060

‐Gray PG, Poliomyelitis and inoculations. Volume 263, Issue 6810, 6 March 1954,
Pages 516‐517

‐Matthias, Mechanism of Injury‐Provoked Poliomyelitis, J of Virology, June 1998,
5056‐5060.

‐SM Lambert, “ A yaws campaign and an epidemic of poliomyelitis in Western
Samoa” J Trop Med Hyg 1936, 39: 41‐46.

German studies on provocation:
‐Kern H, Ueber eine anstaltsendemie von Heine‐Medizinscher krankheit. Muen Med
Wochen, 1914, 61: 1053‐55

‐Alterthum, Lues congenital and poliomyelitis, Deut Med Wochen, 1928, 54: 522‐23

‐Gougerot H, Eveil d’infection neurotrope a virus filtrant a ls suite d’arsenotherapie
chez dez syphilitiques, Bull Soc Derm syph, 1935,42:794‐795.

Poison cause of polio:
Ralph R. Scobey MD, The Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis and Obstructions to its
Investigation, Arch Pediatr, April 1952, Vol. 69, pp. 172‐193
PMID:14924801

Tonsillectomy:
FABER HK. Adenotonsillectomy and poliomyelitis. Pediatrics. 1949 Feb;3(2):255‐8.
PMID:18124051

Wilson JL.,1952.”Relationship of tonsillectomy to incidence of poliomyelitis.” JAMA
Oct 11;150(6):539‐41. PMID: 12980786

Ogra PL. 1971. “Effect of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy on nasopharyngeal
antibody response to poliovirus.” N Engl J Med. Jan 14;284(2):59‐64. PMID:
4321186

Top et. al, “Epidemiology of Poliomyelitis in Detroit in 1939.”Am J Pub Health
Nations Health. Aug;31(8):777‐90. PMID 18015472

Weinstein, L. et al, 1954. “A study of the relationship of the absence of tonsils to the
incidence of bulbar poliomyelitis.” Journal of Paediatrics, 44 (1) 14‐19.

Southcott RV. 1953.”Studies on a long range association between bulbar
poliomyelitis and previous tonsillectomy.”Med J Aust. Aug 22;2(8):281‐98 PMID
13098558

Sugar:
Van Meer F. Poliomyelitis: the role of diet in the development of the disease. Med
Hypotheses. 1992 Mar;37(3):171‐8. PMID:1584107

DDT:
1 Report from Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Expert Group
on the assessment of the production and use of DDT and its alternatives for disease
vector control Third meeting Geneva, 10–12 November 2010

1 van den Berg H. Global status of DDT and Its Alternatives for Use in Vector Control
to Prevent Disease. Environ Health Perspect. 2009 Nov;117(11):1656‐1663. PMCID:
PMC2801202

Burgess F and Cameron GR. The Toxicity of D.D.T. Br Med J. 1945 Jun
23;1(4407):865‐71. PMID 20786134

No Shade of Grey on the Right to Keep and Bear arms

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JANUARY 18, 2013

Life is a carousel, a big screen where events appear, pass by, and, due to human nature, repeat themselves throughout history. A person only needs to look back 25, 50, 100 years or a millennium — depending on how much one wants to review — to find out that what’s happening today has already taken place.

Case in point, governments disarming citizens ‘for their own safety’. Why can’t a population realize that disarming THE PEOPLE is the first step that an elected government takes towards crushing them in order to maintain the monopoly of force?

Citing some examples:

China: Murdered 76,702,000 people;
USSR: Murdered 61,911,000 people;
Germany: Murdered 20,946,000 people;
Cambodia: Murdered 2,035,000 people;
Turkey: Murdered 1,883,000 people;
Poland: Murdered 1,585,000 people;
Pakistan: Murdered 1,503,000 people;

All of these populations were either lightly armed or completely disarmed with respect to their governments military power. This fact is a very important one. Being armed in only helpful if one can equal the power of that who posses a threat.

For those of you not familiar with the history of disarmament, murder by government is called DEMOCIDE and all advanced civilizations in human history have gone through it. Bar none.

Overall, governments have murdered between 262,000,000 and 350,000,000 in just the 20th century. If you think it can’t happen again take a look at history, the continuously moving carousel we all ignore on a daily basis even though it is the best source of information.

When it comes to the Second Amendment, I have to agree with judge Andrew Napolitano: There are no shades of grey. We either have it, or don’t have it.

There can’t be a Second Amendment to own a handgun, but not to own a semi-automatic rifle; especially because the right was written with no limitations. The creators of the Bill of Rights in the United States and similar documents in other parts of the world understood that society would evolve, and that throughout that evolution people’s liberty and freedom would be challenged.

There can’t be a Second Amendment to hunt deer, but not to hunt tyrants. Hunting tyrants is the real goal behind giving people the constitutional right to own firearms. It doesn’t matter how much the Government says it is all about hunting. It is not.

There can’t be a Second Amendment to defend our home, but not to defend our country. In many U.S. States, a home is a castle. If a stranger enters that home to steal, injure or kill someone, the homeowner has the right to shoot the intruder without asking questions. Why couldn’t THE PEOPLE apply the same criterium to defend their nation-state?

An even more important question to ask is, why should law-abiding citizens have their Second Amendment taken away — progressively or all at once — because insane people are pharmaceutically induced  to act violently? Should the authorities be more concerned with eradicating the pharmaceuticals that cause sane and insane people to act violently, as supposed to taking away the right to defend ourselves?

When it comes to the right to defend ourselves, the right to keep and bear arms has no shade of grey. We either have it or don’t have it. PERIOD! Those people who can’t stand that their neighbors own firearms to defend themselves from whatever threat, should move to England, North Korea or Mexico.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Reduce Two Leading Childhood Diseases by 50% or More without Vaccines

By JEFFREY J. AUFDERHEIDE | VACTRUTH | JANUARY 4, 2012

It’s not black magic or some out-of-date belief—just good old-fashioned common sense.

Better hygiene, sanitation, and organic food are the foundations for good health. But to what degree could one of those elements (hygiene, for example) have an effect on decreasing a disease? I think finding the answer to this question and considering the evidence is valuable for parents who are considering vaccinating their children.

Why?

Mainstream health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and other such agencies in the United States use emotionally charged language to declare that vaccines—not better sanitation or hygiene— saved the world from deadly diseases.

It is for this reason that I must warn you: Those who push vaccines often trivialize or underestimate the information I am going to share with you. It completely destroys what they have been told for many years.

If you’re interested in learning more, read on.

The Gold Standard

The big secret vaccine peddlers avoid like the plague is, one amazingly simple act reduced two diseases by 50% or more. The most vital point to remember: The decrease in morbidity of—or the rate of incidence of a disease—those affected by the diseases had nothing to do with vaccines!

To get our answer, we turn to Karachi, Pakistan.

In 2002, a randomized controlled trial (a gold standard of scientific research) was performed by Dr. Stephen P. Luby in Karachi, Pakistan. The goal of the study was to assess the impact of hand washing and bathing with soap in settings where infectious diseases are leading causes of childhood disease and death. [1–3]

It is known as the Karachi Health Soap Study.

It’s noteworthy to keep in mind that the variable studied was hand washing—not improved sanitation (waste water treatment), clean drinking water, better food or storage, or even vaccines. In Karachi, sewage contaminates the drinking water and feces contaminates the environment. This is what makes the study so radically powerful!

If you want to see an overview of what was done, read on.

The Power of Simplicity and Education

Here are the some relevant facts you should know about the Karachi Health Soap Study[3]:

  • 25 neighborhoods were either given an antibacterial soap (containing 1.2% triclocarban) or plain soap.
  • 11 neighborhoods were the control. In other words, no hygiene promotion occurred, and no soap was dispensed in these neighborhoods.
  • Both the antibacterial soap and plain soap looked and smelled identical.
  • Both types of soap were packaged identically in generic white wrappers. Neither the fieldworkers nor the families knew whether the soaps were antibacterial or plain.
  • Fieldworkers reviewed with the families the health problems that resulted from contaminated hands and provided them with specific hand-washing instructions.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged households to wash their hands after defecation, after cleaning an infant who had defecated, before preparing food, before eating, and before feeding infants.
  • Fieldworkers encouraged participants to bathe once a day with soap and water.

Here’s what happened next…

Dramatic Decrease in Diseases

Remember my warning in the beginning of the article about the information being dismissed? As you will see, the results are very dramatic.

As noted by the study, in the first 6 months not much change or variation (only 6%) was noted between the different groups. In the graph below, the biggest change came in the second half of the year.

karachi-statistics

The results of the study were analyzed after 51 weeks.

  • Primary diarrhea outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 47% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
    • Plain soap: 52% fewer incidences of diarrhea than control group
  • Primary respiratory outcomes in children younger than 15 years by intervention group
    • Antibacterial soap: 45% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group
    • Plain soap: 50% fewer incidences of pneumonia than control group

It is essential to reemphasize, the World Health Organization lists pneumonia (lower-respiratory infection) and diarrhea as the number 1 and number 2 diseases, which kill more than 3.5 million children worldwide each year. [3–5]

This seems to be in harmony with the principle that Antoine Bechamp—and even Weston Price—wrote about many years ago: The health of the host is everything. The disease is nothing. [6]

Considering that the people in the Karachi study drank the same water, ate the same foods, had the same indoor plumbing (or lack thereof), etc., a significant question has to be asked. If simple hand washing can decrease the morbidity of diarrhea and pneumonia by 50% or more, what happens when better sanitation facilities, food storage, and quality of food are introduced?

Even more important, I’d think there would be comparative data on the effectiveness of hand washing and vaccines. But if that were to happen—given the safety track record of soap versus vaccines—the entire vaccine program would receive a severe death blow.

What we know is when the standard of living increases, mortality and morbidity rates fall.

As an example, mortality rates (not morbidity) in the United States decreased prior to the introduction of vaccines (notice there was not a vaccine for scarlet fever).

united-states-mortality-rates

What could cause such an intense drop in mortality rates? It obviously wasn’t the vaccines. If vaccines caused a 50% drop in morbidity or mortality rate of a disease within a 6-month period, the media would broadcast it all over the news, singing the praises and benefits of getting injected.

The irony of this study is that the Centers for Disease Control provided some funding and reviewed the data. Here’s an excerpt from the study:

The balance of the funding was provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Inclusion of soap trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services. These data were presented in part at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta, GA, USA, in February, 2004. [3]

So, now you know that some people at the Centers for Disease Control know. But here’s the clincher.

Vaccine Pushers

The Centers for Disease Control recommend the following vaccines in the United States to prevent the very same diseases discussed above.

For diarrhea: RotaTeq® (RV5) and Rotarix® (RV1). [7]

For pneumonia: Pneumococcal, haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis (whooping cough), varicella (chickenpox), measles, and influenza (flu) vaccine. [8]

Does the Centers for Disease Control mention washing hands as a means of prevention? Sure—in passing.

They say something to the effect that good hygiene is important, but is not enough to control the spread of the disease. They recommend vaccines.

handwashing-karachi-e1356757852356Then again, you might want to consider why the CDC is so adamant about recommending vaccines. For example, this is from an article on Mercola.com:

Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia earned millions of dollars as part of a $182-million sale by the hospital of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine … The high price placed on the patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine— effectively, to vote himself rich. [9]

Could the deep ties to the pharmaceutical companies be the reason the CDC puts more emphasis on vaccines? Considering the evidence presented in the Karachi Health Soap Study, which would you choose—better hygiene or a vaccine?

Conclusion

What’s the moral of the story?

The data revealed by Stephen P. Luby in the Karachi Health Soap Study is nothing short of spectacular. Children who washed their hands and skin with plain soap had 52% less diarrhea and 50% less pneumonia. Good hygiene has a significant impact on decreasing disease, and I think it is something we take for granted in the United States.

Please remember this point: If better nutrition and sanitation were added as components of this or a future study, I suspect that Karachi, Pakistan, would see a more dramatic drop in diseases, much like in the United States—and I would highly encourage such efforts.

Just imagine the implications of a comparative study being performed between hygiene practices and vaccines for decreasing disease. What do you think the outcome would be? My money would be on hygiene practices being the clear winner.

Here’s the shocking reality.

You hold in your hands the real power and master key to good health. It doesn’t come through the tip of a needle.

References

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levels_of_evidence
  3. Luby, Stephen P., Mubina Agboatwalla, Daniel R. Feikin, John Painter, Ward Billhimer, Arshad Altaf, and Robert M. Hoekstra.“Effect of Handwashing on Child Health: A Randomised Controlled Trial.” The Lancet 366, no. 9481 (July 16, 2005): 225–233. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66912-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023513
  4. WHO Pneumonia Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs331/en/
  5. WHO Diarrhoeal Fact Sheet: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs330/en/
  6. http://www.naturalnews.com/030384_Louis_Pasteur_disease.html
  7. http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/about/prevention.html
  8. http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Pneumonia/
  9. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/06/25/vaccine-doctor-given-at-least-30-million-dollars-to-push-vaccines.aspx