Advertisements

North Korea officially in a ‘state of war’ with South Korea

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MARCH 30, 2013

North Korea announced Friday that relations with South Korea are in a “state of war”, following the surge in tensions between the two countries and sanctions by the United Nations Security Council.

“From now, North-South relations will enter a state of war and matters arising between North and South will be treated accordingly,” communicated the regime at Pyongyang, during a special announcement issued through he state news agency.

In his usual bellicose tone North Korean media published what it said to be a statement from Kim Jong-un, who ordered to set up missiles to strike at “any time” U.S. interests in the region as well as South Korea itself.

In this new announcement, North Korea said that “the situation in which there is neither war nor peace of the Korean peninsula is over.”

The two Koreas have remained technically at war since the end of the conflict that faced them between 1950-1953 and ended with a ceasefire, after which an armistice was signed to avoid further conflict.

The statement published by North Korea also warned of “major combat” beyond the region if South Korea and the U.S. continued their military operations in the demilitarized zone between the two Koreas. According to KCNA, the special announcement was issued today by the Workers’ Party, ministers and other institutions.

These ads are part of the campaign of threats directed by Pyongyang that directly threaten South Korea and the U.S.. The announcements began last March 7 after the UN approved sanctions against the communist country for running nuclear test in February.

In such sanctions, China, the main ally of North Korea, backed and supported the penalties against Pyongyang, a move that analysts say has deepened the isolation and inability to anticipate North Korea’s unexpected response. This week North Korea announced the suspension of the only line of military communication it had with South Korea and managed access to the Kaesong industrial complex amid escalating tension between the two countries.

The White House licks its fingers and responds

As it was expected, the White House in Washington did not take long to respond to North Korea’s declaration of war. In a statement published Friday, the US government says that the threats are taken ”seriously”. The White House “is serious about these threats and remains in close contact with the South Korean allies,” said the National Security Council’s spokeswoman  Caitlin Hayden.

The White House has made it clear in other opportunities that it has the will and the ability to protect the so-called interests of the United States in the region against threats from North Korea. The United States has military bases in the South Pacific region. U.S. President Barack Obama showed his intention to attack North Korea as he responded to questions from the press this week. In fact, the US is now conducting military exercises with South Korea. “This should be proof enough clear to the international community and the North Koreans that we have the ability and willingness to protect our interests in the region.”

The new Secretary of Defense of the United States, Chuck Hagel, has said that “the very provocative and belligerent actions and tone from North Korea increase the danger of more conflict.” Hagel also defended the decision earlier this month to increase defenses against missile threats from the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. He insisted that the Pentagon had not  exaggerated in its reaction. “You just need to go wrong once,” said the Secretary of Defense.

The White House reiterated that the “war rhetoric” from North Korea “only deepens the isolation” of that country and that its aim is to resolve current tensions “in a peaceful manner.” “The road to peace is clear to the North Koreans.” The White House has said that Pyongyang must stop its nuclear program, comply with its international obligations and stop its “war rhetoric”.

Russia to the rescue

Today Russia has called both the Koreas as the U.S. to exercise ”maximum restraint and responsibility” in the escalation launched by the Pyongyang regime in recent weeks and that has culminated with the statement that North Korea had entered into a “state of war” with its southern neighbor.

The latest threat of the communist regime of Kim Jong-un follows a series of measures taken in recent weeks, as the placement of missiles in the direction of U.S. bases in the Pacific and cutting military communications with Seoul.

“We hope the two sides exercise maximum restraint and responsibility and that no one exceeds the point of no return,” said Grigory Logvinov, the Russian Foreign senior official in charge of Korean peninsula.

The last movement of Pyongyang does not awaken too many alarms in South Korea, which estimates that “there is not a new threat.”

Not surprisingly, the two Koreas are still technically at war since the end of the Korean conflict in 1953. The South Korean Defense Ministry has merely said his country will repress ”any provocation.”

Advertisements

Betrayal from the White House as Obama signs Monsanto Protection Act

By DAISY LUTHER | ORGANIC PREPPER | MARCH 28, 2013

Of course, it’s hard to honestly expect President Barack Obama to do the right thing, but many people held out hope that he would veto the most dangerous food act ever to pass the US Congress.  After all, one of his campaign promises the first time around was to enforce the labeling of GMOs.  His wife has that famous organic garden on the White House lawn.  We can trust the Obamas, right?

Wrong.

Yesterday, that slender hope,  the hope that Obama might finally do something for the good of the people instead of the good of the special interest groups that donate heavily to his campaigns, was dashed.  Obama, once again, showed that he is for sale to the highest bidder – and this time that bidder is Monsanto.  Despite a petition that garnered over 250,000 signatures in just a few days, he signed the Monsanto Protection Act into law, completely ignoring the wishes of the people.  In fact, a press release has not even been issued by the White House to give the impression that the highly successful petition was considered.

Food Democracy Now has not given up the battle, however:

We regret to inform you that late last night President Barack Obama signed H.R. 933, which contained the Monsanto Protection Act into law. President Obama knowingly signed the Monsanto Protection Act over the urgent pleas of more than 250,000 Americans who asked that he use his executive authority to veto it. President Obama failed to live up to his oath to protect the American people and our constitution.

Today we’re calling on President Obama to issue an executive order to call for the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

Not only is GMO labeling a reasonable and common sense solution to the continued controversy that corporations like Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical have created by subverting our basic democratic rights, but it is a basic right that citizens in 62 other countries around the world already enjoy, including Europe, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Saudi Arabia.

Join us in demanding mandatory labeling of GMO foods. Now’s the time!

Please take a moment to click the links above and get involved.  We’ve lost the battle, but not the war.   I’m personally pledging at least one article  per week about Monsanto, their incestuous relationship with the government and their toxic grip on agriculture.  I urge everyone to raise a deafening public outcry – every voice adds to the noise that we can create.  Let’s make a noise that cannot be ignored.

The Monsanto Protection Act was slipped quietly through the Congress, in the usual devious manner.  Officially called the  Farmer Assurance Provision, the resolution puts Monsanto, with all their toxins like the cheerfully dubbed Agent Orange and Round-up, as well as their genetically modified monstrosities, beyond the reach of the judicial system.  The courts cannot stop the death brokering company from growing crops deemed to be potentially dangerous.  (Ummm….that would be ALL OF THEM that have been produced by the Monsanto mad science club.)

If ever there was a company that embodied evil, it would be the Monsanto Company.  Last year I wrote about the company:

The combination of unfettered corporate greed, a eugenics agenda and corrupt political manipulation forms an unholy trinity that could make Monsanto the real Cyberdyne Systems.  In the Terminator movies, Cyberdyne Systems created the artificial intelligence computer system Skynet, which destroyed most life on earth and forced survivors to live underground.

Proving once again that fact is indeed as strange as fiction, the Monsanto Company could single handedly cause TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It).   Read more at  Monsanto: The Real Cyberdyne

Horrifyingly, this is just another step towards the science fictionesque predictions that I wrote about.

While most people are constrained by morals, that clearly doesn’t apply with Monsanto.  Now, they aren’t even limited by fear of prosecution.

Pandora’s Box is unlocked, Obama just propped open the lid, and there’s no way to cram the evil back in.

Sudden Death of Your Child After Vaccination May Be Written Off by Researchers

By WENDY LYDALLl | VACTRUTH | MARCH 28, 2013

Around the world, medical authorities tell parents that vaccination has been proven not to cause SIDS, and sometimes they are even told that vaccination prevents SIDS. However, the studies that are used to justify these claims use research methods that do not adequately investigate the possibility that vaccination may actually increase the risk of SIDS in susceptible babies.

The Case-Control Method

A favourite method used by researchers who are looking at the relationship between vaccination and SIDS is the case-control method. Case-control studies compare babies who died with babies who did not die.

The researchers select a group of babies who died of SIDS within a particular geographical area, and these babies are called the cases. Each case is matched with two or three live babies who are called the controls. The vaccination history of the baby who has died is then compared with the vaccination histories of the two or three babies who have not died. Babies who have not received any vaccinations are excluded from the study.

In the case-control studies that have been published, researchers have found that when the live babies were at the age at which the case baby died, they had received more vaccine doses than those who had died. This leads the authors to conclude that vaccination does not cause SIDS, which is a happy conclusion for those who want to promote vaccination, but far from scientifically sound.

One problem with the case-control method is that it could be comparing fragile babies who are susceptible to dying from an immunological onslaught with tougher babies who can survive being injected with animal tissue, human tissue, peanut oil, attenuated germs, toxic metals, toxic chemicals, and genetically engineered yeast. Case-control studies can be useful for investigating something that is static at the time of death; for example, whether the baby was sucking a pacifier, or lying face down.

However, the effects of vaccination are not static; they are ongoing, and they are unknown. Case-control studies can also be useful if you take all the confounding factors into account, but in the case of vaccine susceptibility, no one yet knows what the confounding factors are. Controlling for factors that are known to increase the risk of SIDS does not mean that you are controlling for factors that increase the risk of SIDS from vaccination.

An Important Discovery

In the most recent case-control study, which was done in Germany, researchers found that the babies who died had had fewer vaccinations than the ones who were still alive, and that their vaccinations had been done later. [1]

The latter finding may be significant. Parents can be reluctant to turn up on time for vaccinations when they feel that their baby is unusually fragile, or when they know that vaccine reactions run in the family. Some parents who are not keen on vaccination eventually comply because of the extreme pressure that is put on them, but they do it later than at the prescribed time.

Interestingly, the researchers did find a statistically significantly higher rate of developmental problems, hospital admissions and special investigations, like x-rays or electrocardiograms, in the SIDS babies compared to the live babies. [2] This discovery might mean that the babies with these problems, who were only 22 percent of the SIDS babies, were more susceptible to dying unexpectedly, and that vaccination played no role in their deaths.

Alternatively, it might mean that these babies were susceptible to an unknown effect of vaccination, and that vaccination killed them. A different study design would need to be used to ascertain whether vaccination played a part in the deaths of this 22 percent. The fact that these babies had had fewer doses of vaccine than the live babies with whom they were compared does not mean that they were not pushed over the edge by the vaccines that entered their bodies.

Metabolic Disorders

There has been some consideration of the role that metabolic disorders might play in making children susceptible to adverse reactions from vaccination, but while the possible relationship to SIDS has been considered by one group of doctors, there has not been an actual study. There are many types of metabolic disorders, but each one occurs in only a few children.

In 2010, a group of doctors published an article in which they considered the possibility that some children who were born with metabolic disorders may have died from the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine. The doctors paid special attention to a metabolic disorder called medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency.

After considering the biological pathways in children with medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency, the doctors concluded that one third of the babies who were born with this disorder, and who were also injected with the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine, could have died from resultant low blood sugar. [3]  Because medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency is very rare, this amounted to only 39 babies per year in the USA.

The consideration of medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency was only done seven decades after the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine was introduced. There are more than four hundred metabolic disorders that need to be considered and studied. There may be other types of vulnerability apart from metabolic disorders that make babies susceptible to dying quietly from vaccination. Case-control studies are unable to detect deaths that occur because of individual susceptibility.

Long ago, I mentioned to a pediatrician who publishes articles about SIDS that I considered case-control studies to be an inadequate way of testing whether vaccination increases the risk of SIDS. He replied, “That’s the way it has always been done.”

Valentina A. Soldatenkova is a mathematician and physicist who has also expressed the opinion that case-control studies are inadequate for assessing the relationship between vaccination and SIDS. In her published critique of the existing case-control studies, she criticises the study designs employed and statistical methods used by researchers to conclude that there is no relationship between vaccination and SIDS. [4]

The Institute of Medicine in the USA has the job of publishing complicated whitewashes about vaccine side effects, and they, of course, have done exactly that in regard to the question of whether vaccination may cause some cases of SIDS. Their lengthy report on the existing studies concludes that “the evidence does not support a causal link” between vaccination and SIDS.

Soldatenkova says that their report should have stated that “the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation between SIDS and vaccines.” [4]

Temporal Studies

Another type of study that is often quoted as proving that vaccination does not cause SIDS is the temporal study. Central to these studies is the assumption that if vaccination were to cause a sudden unexplained death, it would do so within 12 hours, or 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 7 days, or 14 days. [5,6,7,8] No one knows what vaccines do once they get inside the body, so no one knows what the time frame is for a negative effect. Implying that they do know is bordering on fraudulent.

Antibodies only start appearing two weeks after vaccination, and the production of antibodies continues for a few more weeks. The researchers, who are sometimes being paid to do the study by a vaccine manufacturer, have no basis for assuming that any negative effects of the ingredients in vaccines would take less time to develop than it takes for antibodies to develop.

The Possible Link Between Vaccination, Blood Sugar, and SIDS

It is possible that some SIDS deaths may be caused by low blood sugar. Dr. C. Horvarth reported that during a three-year period in New Zealand, the blood sugar level of 84 babies who had died inexplicably was measured at autopsy, and in 81 of them, the level was found to be below the normal range. [9]

Other studies have shown that low blood sugar is strongly associated with SIDS. [10,11,12,13] When the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine causes the level of blood sugar to drop, the drop starts at about 8 days after injection, reaches its lowest point at about 12 days after injection, and becomes normal at about 24 days after injection. [14]

Promising New Protocols

Many countries have passed legislation that an autopsy must be done after every SIDS death, and they have introduced protocols that have to be followed. This is a great step forward. Previously autopsies were only done if someone felt like doing one, and they could decide what to investigate and what to ignore.

One of the benefits of the introduction of autopsy protocols is that explanations are found for some of the otherwise mysterious deaths. In Germany, for example, a non-SIDS explanation for 11.2% of the SIDS deaths was found because of the autopsies. [15]

In the future, the protocols will help to identify ways to reduce the incidence of SIDS.  In the mean time, they help detect to infant abuse, and they help to prevent parents from being falsely accused of abuse. The protocols also mean that doctors can no longer write off blatantly obvious reactions to vaccination as SIDS.

The usefulness of the autopsies would be enhanced if they were to include an assessment of the blood sugar level at the time of death, which can be done even though blood glucose continues to be broken down for a short while after death. [10, 16]

Conclusion

SIDS has been occurring since long before vaccination was invented. [17]  As records of its incidence were not kept until relatively recently, it is not possible to know whether the rate of SIDS in modern times is different to what it was in the distant past. To gain more insight into the distressing phenomenon of SIDS, blood sugar levels at the time of death should be assessed in every SIDS autopsy, and every vaccine that is recommended for infants should be tested to find out whether it causes blood sugar levels to drop at any time after vaccination.

References

1. Vennemann, M.M., Butterfaß-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Findeisen, M., Sauerland, C., et al. (2007). “Sudden infant death syndrome: No increased risk after immunization.” Vaccine: 25(2), 336–340.

2. Vennemann, M.M., Findeisen, M., Butterfass-Bahloul, T., Jorch, G., Brinkmann, B., Kopcke W. et al. (2005). “Infection, health problems, and health care utilisation, and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome.” Archives of Disease in Childhood: 90(5), 520–522. http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/5/520.long

3. Wilson, K., Potter, B., Manuel, D., Keelan, J., & Chakraborty P. (2010). “Revisiting the possibility of serious adverse events from the whole cell pertussis vaccine: Were metabolically vulnerable children at risk?” Medical Hypotheses: 74(1), 150–154.

4. Soldatenkova, V.A. (2007). “Why case-control studies showed no association between Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and vaccinations.” Medical Veritas: 4, 1411–1413. http://pdfdownloadfree.net/?pdfurl=1qeXpurpn6Wih-SUpOGunKqnh8PX74XXy…

5. Keens, T.G., Ward, S.L., Gates, E.P., Andree, D.I., & Hart, L.D. (1985). “Ventilatory pattern following diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization in infants at risk for sudden infant death syndrome.” American Journal of Diseases of Children: 139(10), 991–994.

6. Hoffman, H.J., Hunter, J.C., Damus, K., Pakter, J., Peterson, D.R., van Belle, G., et al. (1987). “Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome risk factors.” Pediatrics: 79(4), 598–611.

7. Brotherton, J.M., Hull, B.P., Hayen, A., Gidding, H.F., & Burgess, M.A. (2005). “Probability of coincident vaccination in the 24 or 48 hours preceding sudden infant death syndrome death in Australia.” Pediatrics: 115(6), 643–646. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/6/e643.long

8. Griffin, M.R., Ray, W.A., Livengood, J.R., & Schaffner, W. (1988). “Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine.” New England Journal of Medicine: 319(10), 618–23.

9. Horvarth, C.H. (1990). “Sudden infant death syndrome.” New Zealand Medical Journal: 103(885), 107.

10. Hirvonen, J., Jantti, M., Syrjala, H., Lautala, P., & Akerblom, H.K. (1980). “Hyperplasia of islets of Langerhans and low serum insulin in cot deaths.” Forensic Science International: 16, 213–226. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7009350

11. Read, D.J., Williams, A. L., Hensley, W., Edwards, M., & Beal, S. (1979). “Sudden Infant Deaths: Some Current Research Strategies.” Medical Journal of Australia: 2(5), 236–238, 240–241, 244.

12. Aynsley-Green, A., Polak, J.M., Keeling, J., Gough, M.H., & Baum, J.D. (1978). “Averted sudden neonatal death due to pancreatic nesidioblastosis.” The Lancet: 311(8063), 550–551.

13. Cox, J.N., Guelpa, G., & Terrapon, M. (1976). “Islet-cell hyperplasia and sudden infant death.” The Lancet: 308(7985), 739–740.

14. Dhar, H.L. & West, G.B. (1972). “Sensitization procedures and the blood sugar concentration.” Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology: 24, 249.

15. Findeisen,M., Vennemann, M.M., Brinkmann, B., Ortmann, C., Röse, I., Köpcke, W. et al. (2004). “German study on sudden infant death (GeSID): design, epidemiological and pathological profile.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 118(3), 163–169. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15042379

16. Palmiere, C. & Mangin, P. (2012). “Postmortem chemistry update part I.” International Journal of Legal Medicine: 126(2), 187–98.

17. Limerick, S.R. (1992). “Sudden infant death in historical perspective.” Journal of Clinical Pathology, 45(Suppl), 3–6.

United States backed Genocides: From Guatemala to Congo

By GLEN FORD | BLACK AGENDA REPORT | MARCH 28, 2013

Guatemala has put its U.S.-backed genocidal maniac on trial, but Washington continues to protect its agents of mass murder in the Democratic Republic of Congo. “There is no auditorium big enough to hold the all the living Americans who should justly be charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.”

The man who unleashed a genocide against the Maya Indians of Guatemala, former dictator and general Efrain Rios Montt, went on trial for his crimes against humanity in Guatemala City, this week. By all rights, the 86 year-old Montt should be joined in the dock by scores of still-living United States officials, including former President George Bush the First.

“The genocide would have been impossible without the United States.”

Back in 1954, the CIA overthrew the reformist government of President Jacobo Arbenz, whose land reform measures had angered the United Fruit Company. The U.S. termination with extreme prejudice of Guatemalan democracy ultimately led to a 36-year rebellion and civil war, with the Americans backing a succession of dictators.

General Montt was the most monstrous. In the 1980s, his regime declared total war on the Mayan people of the country’s highlands. Whole villages were massacred and entire regions laid waste as the military attempted to drain the human sea in which the guerilla movement swam. Army documents show clearly that the native Maya were targeted for extermination because of their ethnicity; that all Maya – a majority of Guatemala’s population – were considered enemies of the state. Rios Montt is the first Latin American former head of state to be charged with genocide in his own country.

However, this crime is not Rios Montt’s, alone. The genocide would have been impossible without the United States, which had run the show in Guatemala since 1954 and had armed the general to the teeth. The U.S. corporate media like to call President Ronald Reagan the “Great Communicator” but, in Guatemala, he was the Great Exterminator, encouraging and financing General Rios Montt’s orgy of mass murder.

Reagan described the racist butcher as “a man of great personal integrity and commitment” who was “getting a bum rap.” All told, a quarter million or more Guatemalans died in the 40 years since the CIA robbed them of their democracy and independence.

“The Maya were targeted for extermination because of their ethnicity.”

In 1999, when the civil war was over, President Bill Clinton apologized for the harm done to Guatemala by the United States. But by then, Clinton had already set in motion a far larger genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo – a U.S.-sponsored holocaust that has so far claimed 6 million lives.

In a just world, Slick Willie would join an auditorium full of Obama, Bush and Clinton administration operatives who, over the space of 16 years, made eastern Congo the charnel house of the planet. Susan Rice would have a place of prominence in this vast assemblage of criminals, as among the most culpable for the worst bloodbath since World War Two.

In fact, there is no auditorium big enough to hold the all the living Americans who should justly be charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. There are too many – great crowds of them from each administration, especially in the last ten years, since the invasion of Iraq. Imperialism in its last stages maintains an ever-lengthening Kill List.

Guatemala is coming to grips with its past, in a trial that will probably last a few months. The United States has an infinity of crimes to answer for.

Michael Bloomberg the tyrant says… Court decisions don’t matter

The New York City Mayor says it is normal for government to infringe on individual freedoms because government knows best.

By CHERYL CHUMLEY | WASHINGTON TIMES | MARCH 25, 2013

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Sunday: Sometimes government does know best. And in those cases, Americans should just cede their rights.

“I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom,” Mr. Bloomberg said, during an appearance on NBC. He made the statement during discussion of his soda ban — just shot down by the courts — and insistence that his fight to control sugary drink portion sizes in the city would go forth.

“We think the judge was just clearly wrong on this,” he said, on NBC. “Our Department of Health has the legal ability to do this. … [They’re] not banning anything.”

Mr. Bloomberg’s remaining months in office have included a firestorm of regulations and policy pushes on wide range of issues. Aside from the soda size ban and a well-publicized call for tighter gun control, another contentious policy he pushed: Nudging hospitals to lock up baby formula to force mothers to breast-feed newborns.