Archive for February, 2008

Polio Vaccination Compulsory in Belgium: Parents Jailed for Refusing Jab

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

Here is where we are going if we do not act together to stop it.
The Polio vaccine is known to carry the CMV-40 virus which is a proven cause of leukemia. it also confers huge dangers (http://thepowerhour.com/news/polio_dangers.htm) including paralysis and death (http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html#CHAPTER%20X:%20THE%20HIDDEN%20DANGERS%20IN%20POLIO%20VACCINE). In fact, authorities examining the results of Polio vaccination concluded in 1955

“The interval between inoculation and the first sign of paralysis ranged from 5 to 20 days and in a large proportion of cases it started in the limb on which the injection had been given. Another feature of the tragedy was that the numbers developing polio were far greater than would have been expected had no inoculations been given. In fact in the state of Idaho, according to a statement by Dr. Carl Eklund, one of the Government’s chief virus authorities, polio struck only vaccinated children in areas where there had been no cases of polio since the preceding autumn; in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms in which the vaccine had been injected.” (News Chronicle, May 6, 1955)

According to the Daily Telegraph (June 18, 1955) Mr. Peterson, State Health Director of Idaho, stopped further inoculations and stated: “We have lost confidence in the Salk Vaccine.” He also stated that he “holds the vaccine, together with the instructions for its manufacture, directly responsible for the outbreak of polio and the deaths that had occurred.”

Nonetheless, Polio vaccination is a huge business and, despite the well documented dangers associated with it, mandatory vaccination has become an item of public health dogma in many places around the world. In fact, in Belgium, polio vaccination is compulsory and is taken so seriously that two parents who refused the infection for their child have been fined and jailed. Here is the story as reported in the British Medical Journal.

If this is not an acceptable public health policy, now would be a good time to act since State ordered (as well as school and college ordered) compulsory vaccination scenarios are becoming more common by the day in the US. The US government has given itself the authority to institute compulsory vaccinations without proof, scientific input or medical review. Frighteningly, it has announced that it has stock piled enough Avian Flu vaccine for every man, woman and child in the US.

Of course, virologically, that is impossible if, as they maintain, the pandemic form of the H5N1 virus does not exist yet since a vaccine cannot be made against a virus that does not exist. So just what is in that vaccine? And why is this such a vital issue to the US government and the World Health Organization (WHO)? Could the Health Minister of Indonesia be correct? Could it be true that the WHO gave Indonesian Avian Flu samples to a bioweapons laboratory at Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico? And could her belief be accurate that the US and WHO are manipulating the alleged dangers for their own political and economic gain?

And, oh, by the way, just what is in that vaccine (or any other, for that matter)? Would it contain the material to stimulate antibodies to the hormone that women make when they are in early pregnancy, HCG, (Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin) so that woman become sterile? That technology was used by the WHO in Africa by mixing it with other vaccines, according to Dr. William Deagle, to “eliminate 150 million excess sub Saharan Africans” since it rendered woman receiving it sterile. The same technology was used, under the support of the US, the Norwegian Government and the WHO in South and Central America when women of child bearing age got tetanus shots (which also contained this material, although they were not informed that they were receiving a vaccine against getting pregnant.) Significantly, men and boys did not receive this vaccine although they are probably just as likely to step on a rusty nail as a woman or girl.

Or might it have a new virus, or an old one like the one allegedly disseminated in small pox vaccinations in Africa? Might it have the double dose of thimerisol (compared to US vaccines) that the vaccines so generously supplied to the children of the developing world by high profile philanthropies are reported to contain. Perhaps a new genetically engineered plague? Who knows. Without public comment and scientific review, the harm done by new vaccinations will only emerge later, perhaps much later. And in that context it would be well to recall that the FDA has removed your right to sue the manufacturer of any drug or vaccine for any damage it causes if it has been approved by the FDA for any purpose at all. So if you roll up your sleeve (or your child’s sleeve) for that “jab” as they call them in the UK, you are accepting whatever risks and damage comes your way without recourse or recompense.

if that does not work for you, now would be a very good time to take action to make it clear to our legislators that we do not accept the notion that our health freedom can be tossed aside at the whim of a government or school official and that we will not accept compulsory vaccination. Visit the home page of the Natural Solutions Foundation at www.HealthFreedomUSA.org to take the action steps listed there to stop compulsory vaccinations. And while you are there, take a moment to sign up for the Health Freedom eAlerts and make a tax deductible donation (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to keep health freedom free! Recurring donations are especially helpful.
And don’t forget to join the No Forced Vaccination Forum on Yahoo.com (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/NSF-Panama/join) to share information and become part of an active community of like-minded activists.

Thanks for your activism.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Two parents face jail for refusing polio jab
21 February 2008
Two sets of parents in Belgium have been sentenced to prison after they refused to vaccinate their children against polio. The vaccination is compulsory in Belgium.

The parents have been fined £4,100 ($8000) and sentenced to five months’ imprisonment.

They failed to appear in court, and the judge sentenced them on the basis of police evidence. He suspended the prison sentence, and has given the parents a second chance to have their children vaccinated.

Belgian law allows exceptions to the vaccine only if parents can prove that their child would have an adverse reaction to it.

(Source: British Medical Journal, 2008; 336: 348).

US Compensating Child with Autism for Vaccine Injury in Ground Breaking Settlement

Wednesday, February 27th, 2008

Vaccine Case Settled by US With Admission that Vaccine Injury Associated with Autism

In a striking admission, the US government has finally agreed to the fact that vaccines can cause autism, at least in one landmark case. In a Federal Vaccine Court case, the Department of Health and Human Services, the parent body for the FDA (and the CDC and the other organizations which impact and control vaccines in the United States) acknowledged that a little girl who collapsed into autism within days of simultaneous vaccination against 9 different diseases was, in fact, damaged by the vaccines. Although they asserted that the child had an underlying disorder of the mitochondria (the energy producing organelles upon which we rely for cellular energy) they did concede that “The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD.”

The other 4900 pending cases in which vaccine damage is alleged will, according to our legal sources, probably be settled the same way. In this case, the little girl will receive the life-long care she will need because of this settlement. Nothing the government does, of course, can restore her life, or her family’s normality, to her. In my experience as a physician, there are ways to retrieve autistic people, but they do not involve drugs. They involve nutrition, detoxification, frequency therapies and other non-pharmaceutical approaches. But they are all long, arduous and demanding. And not every autistic child has access to these methods. For most, the risk of vaccination is not only the risk of infection with the disease supposedly being “protected” against, but a collapse of the immune system, neurological damage or death, cancer and other potentially lethal consequences. When do we, as a people, say “NO” to the uninsurable risk presented by vaccines?

Insurance companies refuse to insure vaccine risk because the risk is simply too great. But the US and the individual States in the Union continue to insist on more, and more dangerous, vaccines. According to Barbara Fisk, a New Jersey Health Freedom advocate fighting against compulsory vaccination, by the time a child reaches adolescence in New Jersey (which is not much different from the rest of the US), he/she will have received 74 vaccinations! Remembering that each one contains cumulative poisons like formaldehyde, heavy metals like mercury, toxins like aluminum, dangerous adjuvants like squalene (thought to be responsible for Gulf War Syndrome in soldiers vaccinated with the required Anthrax vaccine and present in most modern vaccines), neurotoxins like MSG (also toxic to the pancreas), cancer-causing viruses like CMV-40, bits of foreign protein and stealth viruses, the wonder of our modern, and somewhat insane, age is that there are any children left who are NOT autistic. Of course, given the numbers of children diagnosed with neurological and psychiatric disorders and the number of children with diabetes (MSG puts the pancreas into overdrive) and cancer, as well as auto immune diseases, perhaps that is too optimistic an assessment. Perhaps the only really healthy children are those who have never been vaccinated at all!

So vaccination benefits the manufacturers of vaccines in several ways: first, through direct profits from the huge sales of ever more vaccines and second from the drug sales engendered by the many diseases precipitated by vaccination. By the way, according to FDA documents, that would include cervical cancer in girls and women vaccinated with the HPV vaccine since the vaccine is associated with a four fold increase in cervical cancer BUT the types of HPV which it supposedly protects against are self-limited, benign viruses which do not cause cancer.

If you do not want to be forcibly vaccinated, you need to take action now and ask everyone in your circle of influence to become active in protecting your rights and theirs at the same time as well. Here’s how:
1. Forward this article to everyone you know
2. Ask them to go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the secure, free Health Freedom eAlerts so they can stay current on health freedom issues like this one.
3. Ask them to “Ride the Freedom Mouse” and tell their legislators that they do not want compulsory vaccinations by clicking here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21833)
4. Let them know that they can sign the Tiburon Declaration (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=460) against forced drugging of any kind (including vaccination) and become part of the growing number of grass roots voices taking charge of our own health decisions
5. Ask them to help prevent schools from enforcing drugging in kids when their parents do not agree by supporting S. 891, the Child Medication Safety Act (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=18970), which prevents schools from forcing parents to drug their children or face charges of child abuse, having the child removed from the home or barred from school and other abuses designed to force parents to consent to drugging their children with dangerous psychoactive medication.
6. Join the No-Forced-Vaccination Forum (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/no-forced-vaccination/join) and become part of a vigorous and highly informative community of people determined not to permit compulsory vaccination for themselves and their loved ones.
7. And, of course, let them know that health freedom is not free and ask them to help support the Natural Solutions Foundation (www.HealthFreedomUSA.org) with a tax deductible donation (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189). Recurring donations help us a great deal because then we know what we can budget on a monthly basis.

Our solutions are natural and they work! We are the most effective grass roots voice of health freedom in the US and globally.

Please pass this information along as widely as you can. Thanks for your activism.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director

Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Read David Kirby’s article on this land mark settlement:

Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court – Now What?

Posted February 25, 2008 | 12:42 PM (EST)

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff’s identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal “Vaccine Court,” was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the “defendant” in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child’s claim against the government — that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism — was supposed to be one of three “test cases” for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the case and “concluded that compensation is appropriate.”

The doctors conceded that the child was healthy and developing normally until her 18-month well-baby visit, when she received vaccinations against nine different diseases all at once (two contained thimerosal).

Days later, the girl began spiraling downward into a cascade of illnesses and setbacks that, within months, presented as symptoms of autism, including: No response to verbal direction; loss of language skills; no eye contact; loss of “relatedness;” insomnia; incessant screaming; arching; and “watching the florescent lights repeatedly during examination.”

Seven months after vaccination, the patient was diagnosed by Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a leading neurologist at the Kennedy Krieger Children’s Hospital Neurology Clinic, with “regressive encephalopathy (brain disease) with features consistent with autistic spectrum disorder, following normal development.” The girl also met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) official criteria for autism.

In its written concession, the government said the child had a pre-existing mitochondrial disorder that was “aggravated” by her shots, and which ultimately resulted in an ASD diagnosis.

“The vaccinations received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder,” the concession says, “which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of ASD.”

This statement is good news for the girl and her family, who will now be compensated for the lifetime of care she will require. But its implications for the larger vaccine-autism debate, and for public health policy in general, are not as certain.

In fact, the government’s concession seems to raise more questions than it answers.

1) Is there a connection between vaccines, mitochondrial disorders and a diagnosis of autism, at least in some cases?

Mitochondria, you may recall from biology class, are the little powerhouses within cells that convert food into electrical energy, partly through a complex process called “oxidative phosphorylation.” If this process is impaired, mitochondrial disorder will ensue.

The child in this case had several markers for Mt disease, which was confirmed by muscle biopsy. Mt disease is often marked by lethargy, poor muscle tone, poor food digestion and bowel problems, something found in many children diagnosed with autism.

But mitochondrial disorders are rare in the general population, affecting some 2-per-10,000 people (or just 0.2%). So with 4,900 cases filed in Vaccine Court, this case should be the one and only, extremely rare instance of Mt disease in all the autism proceedings.

But it is not.

Mitochondrial disorders are now thought to be the most common disease associated with ASD. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD than the general population.

Another article, published in the Journal of Child Neurology and co-authored by Dr. Zimmerman, showed that 38% of Kennedy Krieger Institute autism patients studied had one marker for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, and 47% had a second marker.

The authors — who reported on a case-study of the same autism claim conceded in Vaccine Court — noted that “children who have (mitochondrial-related) dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.”

An interesting aspect of Mt disease in autism is that, with ASD, the mitochondrial disease seems to be milder than in “classic” cases of Mt disorder. In fact, classic Mt disease is almost always inherited, either passed down by the mother through mitochondrial DNA, or by both parents through nuclear DNA.

In autism-related Mt disease, however, the disorder is not typically found in other family members, and instead appears to be largely of the sporadic variety, which may now account for 75% of all mitochondrial disorders.

Meanwhile, an informal survey of seven families of children with cases currently pending in Vaccine Court revealed that all seven showed markers for mitochondrial dysfunction, dating back to their earliest medical tests. The facts in all seven claims mirror the case just conceded by the government: Normal development followed by vaccination, immediate illness, and rapid decline culminating in an autism diagnosis.

2) With 4,900 cases pending, and more coming, will the government concede those with underlying Mt disease — and if it not, will the Court award compensation?

The Court will soon begin processing the 4900 cases pending before it. What if 10% to 20% of them can demonstrate the same Mt disease and same set of facts as those in the conceded case? Would the government be obliged to concede 500, or even 1,000 cases? What impact would that have on public opinion? And is there enough money currently in the vaccine injury fund to cover so many settlements?

When asked for a comment last week about the court settlement, a spokesman for HHS furnished the following written statement:

“DVIC has reviewed the scientific information concerning the allegation that vaccines cause autism and has found no credible evidence to support the claim. Accordingly, in every case under the Vaccine Act, DVIC has maintained the position that vaccines do not cause autism, and has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination.”

3) If the government is claiming that vaccines did not “cause” autism, but instead aggravated a condition to “manifest” as autism, isn’t that a very fine distinction?

For most affected families, such linguistic gymnastics is not so important. And even if a vaccine injury “manifested” as autism in only one case, isn’t that still a significant development worthy of informing the public?

On the other hand, perhaps what the government is claiming is that vaccination resulted in the symptoms of autism, but not in an actual, factually correct diagnosis of autism itself.

4) If the government is claiming that this child does NOT have autism, then how many other children might also have something else that merely “mimics” autism?

Is it possible that 10%-20% of the cases that we now label as “autism,” are not autism at all, but rather some previously undefined “look-alike” syndrome that merely presents as “features” of autism?

This question gets to the heart of what autism actually is. The disorder is defined solely as a collection of features, nothing more. If you have the features (and the diagnosis), you have the disorder. The underlying biology is the great unknown.

But let’s say the government does determine that these kids don’t have actual “autism” (something I speculated on HuffPost a year ago). Then shouldn’t the Feds go back and test all people with ASD for impaired oxidative phosphorylation, perhaps reclassifying many of them?

If so, will we then see “autism” cases drop by tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people? Will there be a corresponding ascension of a newly described disorder, perhaps something like “Vaccine Aggravated Mitochondrial Disease with Features of ASD?”

And if this child was technically “misdiagnosed” with DSM-IV autism by Dr Zimmerman, how does he feel about HHS doctors issuing a second opinion re-diagnosis of his patient, whom they presumably had neither met nor examined? (Zimmerman declined an interview).

And along those lines, aren’t Bush administration officials somewhat wary of making long-distance, retroactive diagnoses from Washington, given that the Terry Schiavo incident has not yet faded from national memory?

5) Was this child’s Mt disease caused by a genetic mutation, as the government implies, and wouldn’t that have manifested as “ASD features” anyway?

In the concession, the government notes that the patient had a “single nucleotide change” in the mitochondrial DNA gene T2387C, implying that this was the underlying cause of her manifested “features” of autism.

While it’s true that some inherited forms of Mt disease can manifest as developmental delays, (and even ASD in the form of Rhett Syndrome) these forms are linked to identified genetic mutations, of which T2387C is not involved. In fact little, if anything, is known about the function of this particular gene.

What’s more, there is no evidence that this girl, prior to vaccination, suffered from any kind of “disorder” at all- genetic, mitochondrial or otherwise. Some forms of Mt disease are so mild that the person is unaware of being affected. This perfectly developing girl may have had Mt disorder at the time of vaccination, but nobody detected, or even suspected it.

And, there is no evidence to suggest that this girl would have regressed into symptoms consistent with a DSM-IV autism diagnosis without her vaccinations. If there was such evidence, then why on earth would these extremely well-funded government attorneys compensate this alleged injury in Vaccine Court? Why wouldn’t they move to dismiss, or at least fight the case at trial?

6) What are the implications for research?

The concession raises at least two critical research questions: What are the causes of Mt dysfunction; and how could vaccines aggravate that dysfunction to the point of “autistic features?”

While some Mt disorders are clearly inherited, the “sporadic” form is thought to account for 75% of all cases, according to the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation. So what causes sporadic Mt disease? “Medicines or other toxins,” says the Cleveland Clinic, a leading authority on the subject.

Use of the AIDS drug AZT, for example, can cause Mt disorders by deleting large segments of mitochondrial DNA. If that is the case, might other exposures to drugs or toxins (i.e., thimerosal, mercury in fish, air pollution, pesticides, live viruses) also cause sporadic Mt disease in certain subsets of children, through similar genotoxic mechanisms?

Among the prime cellular targets of mercury are mitochondria, and thimerosal-induced cell death has been associated with the depolarization of mitochondrial membrane, according to the International Journal of Molecular Medicine among several others. (Coincidently, the first case of Mt disease was diagnosed in 1959, just 15 years after the first autism case was named, and two decades after thimerosal’s introduction as a vaccine preservative.)

Regardless of its cause, shouldn’t HHS sponsor research into Mt disease and the biological mechanisms by which vaccines could aggravate the disorder? We still do not know what it was, exactly, about this girl’s vaccines that aggravated her condition. Was it the thimerosal? The three live viruses? The two attenuated viruses? Other ingredients like aluminum? A combination of the above?

And of course, if vaccine injuries can aggravate Mt disease to the point of manifesting as autism features, then what other underlying disorders or conditions (genetic, autoimmune, allergic, etc.) might also be aggravated to the same extent?

7) What are the implications for medicine and public health?

Should the government develop and approve new treatments for “aggravated mitochondrial disease with ASD features?” Interestingly, many of the treatments currently deployed in Mt disease (i.e., coenzyme Q10, vitamin B-12, lipoic acid, biotin, dietary changes, etc.) are part of the alternative treatment regimen that many parents use on their children with ASD.

And, if a significant minority of autism cases can be linked to Mt disease and vaccines, shouldn’t these products one day carry an FDA Black Box warning label, and shouldn’t children with Mt disorders be exempt from mandatory immunization?

8) What are the implications for the vaccine-autism debate?

It’s too early to tell. But this concession could conceivably make it more difficult for some officials to continue insisting there is “absolutely no link” between vaccines and autism.

It also puts the Federal Government’s Vaccine Court defense strategy somewhat into jeopardy. DOJ lawyers and witnesses have argued that autism is genetic, with no evidence to support an environmental component. And, they insist, it’s simply impossible to construct a chain of events linking immunizations to the disorder.

Government officials may need to rethink their legal strategy, as well as their public relations campaigns, given their own slightly contradictory concession in this case.

9) What is the bottom line here?

The public, (including world leaders) will demand to know what is going on inside the US Federal health establishment. Yes, as of now, n=1, a solitary vaccine-autism concession. But what if n=10% or 20%? Who will pay to clean up that mess?

The significance of this concession will unfortunately be fought over in the usual, vitriolic way — and I fully expect to be slammed for even raising these questions. Despite that, the language of this concession cannot be changed, or swept away.

Its key words are “aggravated” and “manifested.” Without the aggravation of the vaccines, it is uncertain that the manifestation would have occurred at all.

When a kid with peanut allergy eats a peanut and dies, we don’t say “his underlying metabolic condition was significantly aggravated to the extent of manifesting as an anaphylactic shock with features of death.”

No, we say the peanut killed the poor boy. Remove the peanut from the equation, and he would still be with us today.

Many people look forward to hearing more from HHS officials about why they are settling this claim. But whatever their explanation, they cannot change the fundamental facts of this extraordinary case:

The United State government is compensating at least one child for vaccine injuries that resulted in a diagnosis of autism.

And that is big news, no matter how you want to say it.

David Kirby is the author of “Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy” (St. Martins Press 2005.

GM Files: GM’s, Protein, Fish Oil and Brain Power for Kids

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Despite the fact that more and more kids are raised on empty calories and that somehow they will get by and build healthy brains and bodies on the junk purveyed by the industrialized food suppliers (the folks who make the stuff advertised to kids on TV, attractively packaged in supermarket aisles and sold as “treats” and “fast foods” (including carbonated and sweetened drinks of all sorts), a recent study (one of a gazillion) makes the
Glyphosate is a highly toxic substance well documented to be associated with infertility, cancer, auto immune diseases and a host of other serious or potentially lethal problems in people.

Even if the glyphosate is not produced in your body, the foreign DNA and virus bits inserted into the food during the process of genetic modification are not digestible by our enzymes. They wander around and eventually can become parts of your own DNA where they act to produce what are called “novel proteins”. These novel proteins, which have never been produced before in the history of living things, have impacts which are totally unknown. So eating prepared and processed foods, sure to be larded with GMOs, is a sure way to make yourself and your kids part of the largest experiment in human history. Ready to be a guinea pig and pay for the privilege? I thought not.

Neither am I.

Remembering that the FDA permits foods to be marketed once their owner has a patent, WITHOUT ANY SAFETY ASSESSMENT OR TESTING, and also prohibits the labeling of foods which contain GMOs because they know that if you knew they contained GMOs you would not buy them (honest! that is what they actually say!) and remembering that organic foods, while not perfect, may not contain GMOs, my suggestion to you is to eat organic. Yes, it can be more expensive. How much does cancer cost? How about pediatric diabetes? Brain tumors? Lupus? What about the cost of not being able to have a child? Think about the real cost of cheap food one more time and switch to organics, at least for your children.

Here’s a recent study documenting how important protein is for kids. But the study is about natural protein, not the unnatural ones created by genetically modified plants and animals.

The foreign DNA from GMO foods migrates to the genetic material in the nucleus of our cells and inserts itself there. Once there, it moves around from site to site and instructs your own DNA to do things: mostly make proteins which have not been made before in your body (or in anyone’s body). They are called “Novel proteins” and the impact they can have is literally unknown. Eating GMO foods is therefore participating in the largest experiment in human history without any thing like an informed consent form since no one is willing to tell you that you are participating in that experiment by clearly labeling your food (at least in the US) and giving you the chance to participate or eat natural, non GMO food.

In the European Union there is a labeling requirement. In Benin there is a moratorium on GMO foods. Many other countries have policies somewhere in between. Those novel proteins, which the inserted genetic material instructs the cells to make have never before been seen in any living creature. No one knows what they will be (since they can change from cell to cell) or what they can do. They can literally be anything, and do anything, including causing organ damage, infertility, cancer or a host of other, as yet unknown, consequences. Eating these unnatural proteins will certainly have consequences for children. But no one knows what they are. What we can say is that when rat pups are exposed to GM food, most of them die before birth and those that do survive are stunted. Those that survive to adult hood are infertile and their kidneys, intestines, immune systems and other organs are damaged, small and poorly functional. So by all means, feed your kids (and yourself) good protein, not FrankenFood protein.

Here’s the study:

Smart Kids: High-protein adds points to your child’s IQ
21 February 2008

A nutritious diet can make your baby smarter, a new study has discovered. Babies who are given a high-protein diet in their first four weeks have higher IQs by the time they reach adolescence.

Researchers from the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London have discovered the special diet also changes the structure of the brain. It increases the size of the caudate nucleus, which is associated with higher intelligence.

The caudate nucleus has its main growth spurt during the first four weeks following birth.

Although scientists have speculated whether nutrition can influence the caudate nucleus, nobody had tested the theory in a study involving babies. The research team had their opportunity during the 1980s when they gave a standard diet and a high-protein diet to two groups of premature babies.

When they tested the same two groups again when they were adolescents, the researchers discovered that those who had been given a high-protein diet as babies had higher verbal IQ scores, and scans revealed their caudate nucleus was larger.

(Source: Pediatric Research, 2008. Doi: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e318163a271).

Fish are being genetically modified, too. And eating them offers the same hazards as eating any other GMO or FrankenFood. But giving kids real fish oil, from real fish (not genetically modified FrankenFish) is really good for their brains! Here is a report documenting that impact.

Fish Oils: They make kids smart, and speed up brain growth

15 March 2007
Fish oil supplements have helped a small group of schoolchildren dramatically accelerate their learning skills and stimulate brain growth.

After just three months, the children’s reading abilities were a year ahead, and their handwriting was neater and more accurate. But, most astonishing of all, their brains showed the sort of growth in three months that normally would be seen only after three years.

Brain scans revealed a far higher level of NAA (N-acetylaspartate), a biochemical indicator of brain development.

The children took two supplements a day of VegEPA, which contains omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, and were encouraged to cut down on fast foods and fizzy drinks, and to be more active.

(Source: The Times, 12 March 2007).

of course, there is another danger in FrankenFish: they are designed to grow faster and reproduce earlier than their natural fore bearers so once they break out of their netting pens in the ocean (which happens regularly in fish farming, by the way, they can be expected to drive the natural species to extinction: they are bigger, better preditors and reproduce faster so over time, they can be expected to be the only salmon or flounder or whatever remaining.

Right now, anyone who understands nutrition well knows that farmed fish are inferior to wild-caught ones because they are customarily fed grains (which fish did not evolve eating!) and kept in such unhealthy conditions that the cancerous parts of the fish are routinely cut out when they are being processed – and they are found in a huge percentage of fish reared in fish farms. Salmon, for example, reared in fish farms is a grey-ish white color, not the vibrant red we are accustomed to. Since a normal wild diet of smaller prey animals and cold waters give salmon both its robust red color and its omega-3 fatty oils, and farmed fish have nether, these animals are given red food dye to make them acceptable to the unwary consumer. Nothing, however, can give farmed fish the omega-3 fatty acids which confer heart and brain benefits on those who consume wild-caught salmon.

In addition to eating organic vegetables and products, it is also important to eat only wild caught fish – until natural fish are exterminated and join the list of forbidden foods for health conscious people.

Don’t let that happen. Join the growing movement for real foods without genetic modification. Purchase only organic foods, supplements and health products. Visit www.Organics4U.org to browse our all-organic on-line store. Every purchase supports your health, the Natural Solutions Foundation and gives you a tax deduction of approximately 40% on your purchase! And, best of all, every product is free from GMOs or ingredients derived from them (unlike many commercially available brands of supplements!).

Join the Natural Solutions Foundation by visiting www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and sign up for the secure, free Health Freedom eAlerts.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

FDA, Vaccine Makers Under Seige: The Beginning of the Beginning for Health Freedom?

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Two hopeful items have surfaced recently.
Reuters reported last month “French judges probe firms over vaccinations
PARIS, Jan 31 (Reuters) – French authorities have opened a formal investigation into two managers from drugs groups GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur over a vaccination campaign in the 1990s, a judicial source said late on Thursday.

Judge Marie-Odile Bertella-Geffroy also opened an investigation for manslaughter against Sanofi Pasteur MSD, a joint venture between Sanofi Aventis (SASY.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Merck (MRK.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the same source said.

The investigations follow allegations that the companies failed to fully disclose side effects from an anti-hepatitis B drug used in a vaccination campaign between 1994 and 1998.

There was no immediate comment from the companies or the two managers involved.

From 1994 to 1998, almost two thirds of the French population and almost all newborn babies were vaccinated against hepatitis B, but the campaign was suspended after concerns arose about possible secondary effects from the treatments.

Some 30 plaintiffs have launched a civil action in the case, including the families of five people who died after vaccination. (Reporting by Thierry Leveque; Writing by James Mackenzie; Editing by David Holmes) RECENT CIVIL ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST BIG PHARMA BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN THE USA REGARDING THE “ANTIPSYCHOTIC” DRUGS RACKET

by Justice Lover

The following report was emailed to me today by ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP):
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability

Cong. Bart Stupak and Cong. John Dingell, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, threatened to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt in contempt for refusing to turn over FDA briefing documents subpoenaed by the committee in its probe over an antibiotic and a blood thinner linked to four deaths.

Sec. Leavitt oversees the FDA and other health care agencies. The documents in question were used to prepare FDA Commissioner, Andrew von Eschenbach,MD, for his appearance before House lawmakers last year. The commissioner testified that FDA did not use the flawed safety study to approve Ketek. But Cong. Stupak called that statement untrue and subpoenaed von Eschenbach’s notes to determine if he lied under oath.The agency has said there was no intention to deceive the public.

Cong. Stupak called on Dr. von Eschenbach to step down because he has demonstrated “a total lack of leadership.”

Underscoring FDA officials’ disregard for the agency’s mission–which is to protect the public health, and ensure that scientifically validated information is disseminated about prescription drugs–the agency has just issued proposed guidelines that would overturn the prohibition against drug manufacturers disseminating information to encourage doctors to prescribe their drug for “off-label” unapproved uses.

In essence, top FDA officials are serving as industry’s handmaiden by attempting to legitimize illegal marketing activities.

Representative Henry Waxman, said the proposed rule “caters to the industry’s desire to market their products without adequate testing or review.” The Food, Drugs, and Cosmetics Act prohibits companies from promoting off-label uses of approved drugs.FDA would protect these manufacturers from deceptive marketing by accepting industry-sponsored and industry controlled articles containing false and misleading information. Such commercially sponsored articles have been shown to inflate the claimed benefits—while concealing the lethal risks.

The proposed FDA rule would legitimize the very activities that have led State Attorneys General and the Justice Department to sue Big Pharma companies.For example, 18 states are suing manufacturers of the so-called ‘atypical’ antipsychotic drugs–the most toxic harm-producing psychotropics–for off-label marketing:

9 states are suing Eli Lilly regarding Zyprexa: Alaska, Louisiana,Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia. 6 states are suing Janssen regarding Risperdal: Arkansas, Louisiana,Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Pennsylvania. 3 states are suing AstraZeneca regarding Seroquel: Pennsylvania, SouthCarolina, and now, Montana . See the complaint posted at http://www.helenair.com/extras/complaint.pdf

AHRP applauds Cong. Stupak for calling a spade a spade.We would further recommend calling for the removal of the top echelon of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).These officials have systematically relegated scientific evidence to file drawers and lent the seal of approval to lethal drugs that caused tens of thousands of Americans to die. That is a colossal disservice of an agency mandated to protect the public health.

-END-

This is what happens when public pressure and education efforts are focused on Congress. Despite the huge amounts of money drug companies spend to buy Congress, when the offenses are hurting their constituents, and their constituents tell them so, or when the offenses are so outrageous that even Congress cannot ignore them, things CAN change.

The Natural Solutions Foundation works with Congress to educate them now. We would like to be able to lobby directly and, for that, need to set up a 501 (c) 4 organization so that we can do just that. Of course, that takes a bit of money, not a lot, really, when you consider what is at stake. If you want to help fund this activity, send an email to Ralph Fucetola, ralph.fucetola@usa.net with “Lobbying” as the subject line. We need about $5,000 to set up the organization and about $3,500 per month to cover expenses. Now is a ripe time for this activity: there is growing public and judicial action on our side. But, of course, we cannot do this important work without the funding necessary. When you think about it, the amounts are minuscule compared to what industry spends, yet our impact far outweighs the dollar input we need in order to make it.

To be clear, the reason that our impact, our footprint, as they say, is so large is because Natural Solutions Foundation supporters take the action steps that we recommend and write to Congress when we ask them to. that means that we are a known, and significant, force because constituents – you – are involved in these issues in large numbers. So between these two forces, we are a force to be reckoned with!

And don’t forget to set up your recurring tax deductible donation (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) which gives us the financial life-blood we need to protect your health and health freedom.

Thanks!
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org

Is America Headed for a Violent Revolution? Could Health Freedom be next “Shot Heard Round the World”?

Sunday, February 24th, 2008

Will there be a violent revolution in the US? If there is, will it be triggered by violations of your health freedom so devastating and so dangerous that Americans will, at last, say, “Enough”, just as they did with the imposition of new taxes at the end of the unopposed British Colonial era and the beginning of that difficult and dangerous period glorified in grade school history books as “The American Revolution”?

Whether you are a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, a Constitutionalist, a libertarian or a six foot scaly reptile, if you are watching (and that means living through) the political, social, economic, constitutional and social upheaval besetting the United States right now, you will find this provocative and thought-provoking article worth reading. Asking if we are heading for a revolution does not mean that I advocate one. Let me be very clear on that score: revolutions damage us all deeply and leave scars which may not heal for hundreds of years. But think about what happens if the US Government starts yelling, “Pandemic! Pandemic”, for example, saying there is an Avian Flu outbreak. Although the Indonesian Health Minister, Mme. Siti Fadila Supari, states unequivocally that the US is manipulating the Avian Flu situation for its own gain and greed, and that the World Health Organization provided Indonesian Avian Flu samples to a US Bioweapons lab at Los Alamos, New Mexico, most people will be so spooked and stampeded by the public “Wag the Dog” outcry created to drive people to compliance that we can expect the majority of them to roll up their sleeves and beg, literally bet, to be inoculated. Or will they?

Liberty after liberty, trusted source after trusted source, civil protection after civil protection have all been rapidly eroding through the heavy hand of an increasingly dictatorial “protection” mentality by government and agencies. On that we all can agree, no matter what our political stance or belief system. At the same time, global and local health freedoms have been undergoing the same erosion for the supposed benefit of our health and well being but with personal freedom and the right to make our own health decision as the victims. Quick, real and frightening examples:
The rapidly arriving onslaught of compulsory vaccinations of children and adults in the US and elsewhere with the specter of “Avian Flu vaccine” on a universal compulsory basis lurking in the not-too-distant background
The FDA literally forbidding labeling of genetically modified ingredients and foods (other than raw produce which has a code on the little oval label produce carries. If it begins with the number “8” it has been genetically modified) because they recognize, according to FDA employee Barbara Schneeman, PhD [head of Office of Dietary Supplements and frequent Codex Delegate for the US] that if you knew your food was genetically modified you would refuse to buy it. By the way, if it begins with the number “4”, the produce has been raised conventionally, which means with pesticides and other chemicals. If it begins with the number “9” the produce is organic and has not been treated with chemicals although it may have been irradiated or “pasteurized” without label notification.
Your medical records, all of them, becoming public property which the Federal Government can sell for commercial purposes and which doctors offices can now transmit on special, $600 computers now available, directly to Google where they will be stored and accessed without your knowledge or your doctors (which is not such a huge departure from where we are now, after all, since if your doctor (or anyone else in the office) tells you that your records have been accessed, that person has committed a felony crime
– Your access to foods which have not been raised with undeclared pesticides or irradiated (now called “pasteurization” to make it sound less frightening) is nearly impossible to assure. All fruits and vegetables imported into the US must be irradiated, but that fact is not declared on any label
Compulsory “mental health screening” followed by drugging with dangerous psychiatric drugs for children, adults and adolescents mandated by at least 6 Federal and numerous State laws. Parents who resist this dangerous imposition on their rights face criminal charges and potential loss of their children to the State. The same imposition of State over personal interests has led to numerous cases of forced chemotherapy treatment despite the wishes of patients and parents
The disappearance of free speech to allow you to learn about and tell others about health benefits associated with a food or food component (currently forbidden by the FDA and Codex as “Health Claims” and “advertising” respectively) without having the potentially benefical substance classified as an “untested drug” by the FDA
The right to sue manufacturers of devices, drugs and vaccines for the damage they have caused whether or not the drug, vaccine or device has been approved by the FDA for any purpose. Currently, if a device, drug or vaccination has been approved by the FDA for any use at all, the manufacturer has no liability, none, for any damage – even death – that the device or drug caused.

Could these basic human, American, personal rights, especially the right to refuse vaccination for oneself and one’s children be so dearly held by Americans, and could the distrust and loathing of government be so strong that, despite marshal law, despite propaganda and despite the police power of the state enforcing it, Americans might refuse in enough numbers, and with enough force to create a revolution? Well, that all depends on whether American discontent has reached a boiling point, rather than a roiling malaise.

Students of social movements and change (and revolutions certainly quality for those descriptions) ask the question, “What are the conditions necessary to create a full blown revolution and have we reached them in the United States. Please read on to learn more about whether the US is, in fact, in critical “blow up” mode.

When Change Is Not Enough: The Seven Steps to Revolution

by Sara Robinson

“Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”

– John F. Kennedy

There’s one thing for sure: 2008 isn’t anything like politics as usual.

The corporate media (with their unerring eye for the obvious point) is fixated on the narrative that, for the first time ever, Americans will likely end this year with either a woman or a black man headed for the White House. Bloggers are telling stories from the front lines of primaries and caucuses that look like something from the early 60s – people lining up before dawn to vote in Manoa, Hawaii yesterday; a thousand black college students in Prairie View, Texas marching 10 miles to cast their early votes in the face of a county that tried to disenfranchise them. In recent months, we’ve also been gobstopped by the sheer passion of the insurgent campaigns of both Barack Obama and Ron Paul, both of whom brought millions of new voters into the conversation – and with them, a sharp critique of the status quo and a new energy that’s agitating toward deep structural change.

There’s something implacable, earnest, and righteously angry in the air. And it raises all kinds of questions for burned-out Boomers and jaded Gen Xers who’ve been ground down to the stump by the mostly losing battles of the past 30 years. Can it be – at long last – that Americans have, simply, had enough? Are we, finally, stepping out to take back our government – and with it, control of our own future? Is this simply a shifting political season – the kind we get every 20 to 30 years – or is there something deeper going on here? Do we dare to raise our hopes that this time, we’re going to finally win a few? Just how ready is this country for big, serious, forward-looking change?

Recently, I came across a pocket of sociological research that suggested a tantalizing answer to these questions – and also that America may be far more ready for far more change than anyone really believes is possible at this moment. In fact, according to some sociologists, we’ve already lined up all the preconditions that have historically set the stage for full-fledged violent revolution.

It turns out that the energy of this moment is not about Hillary or Ron or Barack. It’s about who we are, and where we are, and what happens to people’s minds when they’re left hanging just a little too far past the moment when they’re ready for transformative change.

Way back in 1962, Caltech sociologist James C. Davies published an article in the American Sociological Review that summarized the conditions that determine how and when modern political revolutions occur. Intriguingly, Davies cited another scholar, Crane Brinton, who laid out seven “tentative uniformities” that he argued were the common precursors that set the stage for the Puritan, American, French, and Russian revolutions. As I read Davies’ argument, it struck me that the same seven stars Brinton named are now precisely lined up at midheaven over America in 2008. Taken together, it’s a convergence that creates the perfect social, economic, and political conditions for the biggest revolution since the shot heard ’round the world.

And even more interestingly: in every case, we got here as a direct result of either intended or unintended consequences of the conservatives’ war against liberal government, and their attempt to take over our democracy and replace it with a one-party plutocracy. It turns out that, historically, liberal nations make very poor grounds for revolution – but deeply conservative ones very reliably create the conditions that eventually make violent overthrow necessary. And our own Republicans, it turns out, have done a hell of a job.

Here are the seven criteria, along with the reasons why we’re fulfilling each of them now, and how conservative policies conspired to put us on the road to possible revolution.

1. Soaring, Then Crashing

Davies notes that revolutions don’t happen in traditional societies that are stable and static – where people have their place, things are as they’ve always been, and nobody expects any of that to change. Rather, modern revolutions – particularly the progressive-minded ones in which people emerge from the fray with greater rights and equality – happen in economically advancing societies, always at the point where a long period of rising living standards and high, hopeful expectations comes to a crashing end, leaving the citizens in an ugly and disgruntled mood. As Davies put it:

“Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal. The all-important effect on the minds of people in a particular society is to produce, during the former period, an expectation of continued ability to satisfy needs – which continue to rise – and, during the latter, a mental state of anxiety and frustration when manifest reality breaks away from anticipated reality….

“Political stability and instability are ultimately dependent on a state of mind, a mood, in society…it is the dissatisfied state of mind rather than the tangible provision of ‘adequate’ or ‘inadequate’ supplies of food, equality, or liberty which produces the revolution.”

The American middle class was built on New Deal investments in education, housing, infrastructure, and health care, which produced a very “prolonged period of objective economic and social development.” People were optimistic; generations of growing prosperity raised their expectations that their children would do even better. That era instilled in Americans exactly the kind of hopeful belief in their own agency that primes them to become likely revolutionaries in an era of decline.

And now, thanks to 28 years of conservative misrule, we are now at the point where “manifest reality breaks away from anticipated reality;” and the breach is creating political turbulence. The average American has seen his or her standard of living contract by fits and starts since about 1972. This fall-off that was relieved somewhat by the transition to two-earner households and the economic sunshine of the Clinton years – but then accelerated with the dot-com crash, followed by seven years of Bush’s overt hostility toward the lower 98 percent of Americans who aren’t part of his base. Working-class America is reeling from the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs and the scourge of predatory lending; middle-class America is being hollowed out by health-care bankruptcies, higher college costs, and a tax load far heavier than that of the richest 2 percent. These people expected to do better than their parents. Now, they’re screwed every direction they turn.

In the face of this reversal, Davies tells us, it’s not at all surprising that the national mood is turning ominous, from one end of the political spectrum to the other. However, he warns us: this may not be just a passing political storm. In other times and places, this kind of quick decline in a prosperous nation has been a reliable sign of a full-on revolution brewing just ahead.

2. They Call It A Class War

Marx called this one true, says Davies. Progressive modern democracies run on mutual trust between classes and a shared vision of the common good that binds widely disparate groups together. Now, we’re also about to re-learn the historical lesson that liberals like flat hierarchies, racial and religious tolerance, and easy class mobility not because we’re soft-headed and soft-hearted – but because, unlike short-sighted conservatives, we understand that tight social cohesion is our most reliable and powerful bulwark against the kinds of revolutions that bring down great economies, nations and cultures.

In all the historical examples Davies and Brinton cite, the stage for revolution was set when the upper classes broke faith with society’s other groups, and began to openly prey on them in ways that threatened their very future. Not surprisingly, the other groups soon united, took up arms, and rebelled.

And here we are again: Conservative policies have opened the wealth gap to Depression levels; put workers at the total mercy of their employers; and deprived the working and middle classes of access to education, home ownership, health care, capital, legal redress, and their expectations of a better future for their kids. You can only get away with blaming this on gays and Mexicans for so long before people get wise to the game. And as the primaries are making clear: Americans are getting wise.

Our current plutocratic nobility may soon face the same stark choice its English, French, and Russian predecessors did. They can keep their heads and take proactive steps to close the gap between themselves and the common folk (choosing evolution over revolution, as JFK counsels above). Or they can keep insisting stubbornly on their elite prerogatives, until that gap widens to the point where the revolution comes – and they will lose their heads entirely.

Right now, all we’re asking of our modern-day corporate courtiers is that they accept a tax cut repeal on people making over $200K a year, raise the minimum wage, give us decent health care and the right to unionize, and call a halt to their ridiculous “death tax” boondoggle. In retrospect, their historic forebears might have counseled them to take this deal: their headless ghosts bear testimony to the idea that’s it’s better to give in and lose a little skin early than dig in and lose your whole hide later on.

3. Deserted Intellectuals

Mere unrest among the working and middle classes, all by itself, isn’t enough. Revolutions require leaders – and those always come from the professional and intellectual classes. In most times and places, these groups (which also include military officers) usually enjoy comfortable ties to the upper classes, and access to a certain level of power. But if those connections become frayed and weak, and the disaffected intellectuals make common cause with the lower classes, revolution becomes almost inevitable.

Davies notes that, compared to both the upper and lower classes, the members of America’s upper-middle class were relatively untouched by Great Depression. Because of this, their allegiances to the existing social structure largely remained intact; and he argues that their continued engagement was probably the main factor that allowed America to avert an all-out revolution in the 1930s.

But 2008 is a different story. Both the Boomers (now in their late 40s to early 60s) and Generation X (now in their late 20s to late 40s) were raised in an economically advancing nation that was rich with opportunity and expectation. We spent our childhoods in what were then still the world’s best schools; and A students of every class worked hard to position ourselves for what we (and our parents and teachers) expected would be very successful adult careers. We had every reason to believe that, no matter where we started, important leadership roles awaited us in education, government, the media, business, research, and other institutions.

And yet, when we finally graduated and went to work, we found those institutions being sold out from under us to a newly-emerging group of social and economic conservatives who didn’t share our broad vision of common decency and the common good (which we’d inherited from the GI and Silent adults who raised us and taught us); and who were often so corrupted or so sociopathic that the working environments they created were simply unendurable. If wealth, prestige, and power came at the price of our principles, we often chose instead to take lower-paying work, live small, and stay true to ourselves.

For too many of us, these thwarted expectations have been the driving arc of our adult lives. But we’ve never lost the sense that it was a choice that the America we grew up in would never have asked us to make. In Davies’ terms, we are “deserted intellectuals” – a class that is always at extremely high risk for fomenting revolution whenever it appears in history.

Davies says that revolutions catalyze when these deserted intellectuals make common cause with the lower classes. And much of the energy of this election is coming right out of that emerging alliance. The same drive toward corporatization that savaged our dreams also hammered at other class wedges throughout American society, creating conditions that savaged the middle class and ground the working class toward something resembling serfdom. Between our galvanizing frustration with George Bush, our shared fury at the war, and the new connections forged by bloggers and organizers, that alliance has now congealed into the determinedly change-minded movements we’re seeing this election cycle.

4. Incompetent Government

As this blog has long argued, conservatives invariably govern badly because they don’t really believe that government should exist at all – except, perhaps, as a way to funnel the peoples’ tax money into the pockets of party insiders. This conflicted (if not outright hostile) attitude toward government can’t possibly lead to any outcome other than bad management, bad policy, and eventually such horrendously bad social and economic outcomes that people are forced into the streets to hold their leaders to account.

It turns out there’s never been a modern revolution that didn’t start against a backdrop of atrocious government malfeasance in the face of precipitously declining fortunes. From George III’s onerous taxes to Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake,” revolutions begin when stubborn aristocrats heap fuel on the fire by blithely disregarding the falling fortunes of their once-prosperous citizens. And America is getting dangerously close to that point now. Between our corporate-owned Congress and the spectacularly bad judgment of Bush’s executive branch, there’s never been a government in American history more inept, corrupt, and criminally negligent than this one – or more shockingly out of touch with what the average American is going through. Just ask anyone from New Orleans – or anyone who has a relative in the military.

Liberal democracy avoids this by building in a fail-safe: if the bastards ignore us, we can always vote them out. But if we’ve learned anything over the last eight years, it’s that our votes don’t always count – especially not when conservatives are doing the counting. If this year’s election further confirms the growing conviction that change via the ballot box is futile, we may find a large and disgruntled group of Americans looking to restore government accountability by more direct means.

5. Gutless Wonders in the Ruling Class

Revolution becomes necessary when the ruling classes fail in their duty to lead. Most of the major modern political revolutions occurred at moments when the world was changing rapidly – and the country’s leaders dealt with it by dropping back into denial and clinging defiantly to the old, profitable, and familiar status quo. New technologies, new ideas, and new economic opportunities were emerging; and there came a time when ignoring them was no longer an option. When the leaders failed to step forward boldly to lead their people through the looming and necessary transformations, the people rebelled.

We’re hard up against some huge transformative changes now. Global warming and overwhelming pollution are forcing us to reconsider the way we occupy the world, altering our relationship to food, water, air, soil, energy, and each other. The transition off carbon-based fuels and away from non-recyclable goods is going to re-structure our entire economy. Computers are still creating social and business transformations; biotech and nanotech will only accelerate that. More and more people in the industrialized world are feeling a spiritual void, and coming to believe that moving away from consumerism and toward community may be an important step in recovering that nameless thing they’ve lost.

And, in the teeth of this restless drift toward inevitable change, America has been governed by a bunch of conservative dinosaurs who can’t even bring themselves to acknowledge that the 20th century is over. (Some of them, in fact, are still trying to turn back the Enlightenment.) Liberal governments manage this kind of shift by training and subsidizing scientists and planners, funding research, and setting policies that help their nations navigate these transitions with some grace. Conservative ones – being conservative – will reflexively try to deny that change is occurring at all, and then brutally suppress anyone with evidence to the contrary.

Which is why, every time our current crop of so-called leaders open their mouths to propose a policy or Explain It All To Us, it’s embarrassingly obvious that they don’t have the vision, the intelligence, or the courage to face the future that everyone can clearly see bearing down on us, whether we’re ready or not. Their persistent cluelessness infuriates us – and terrifies us. It’s all too clear that these people are a waste of our tax money: they will never take us where we need to go. Much of the energy we’re seeing in this year’s election is due to the fact that a majority of Americans have figured out that our government is leaving us hung out here, completely on our own, to manage huge and inevitable changes with no support or guidance whatsoever.

Historically, this same seething fury at incompetent, unimaginative, cowardly leaders – and the dawning realization that our survival depends on seizing the lead for ourselves – has been the spark that’s ignited many a violent uprising.

6. Fiscal Irresponsibility

As we’ve seen, revolutions follow in the wake of national economic reversals. Almost always, these reversals occur when inept and corrupt governments mismanage the national economy to the point of indebtedness, bankruptcy, and currency collapse.

There’s a growing consensus on both the left and right that America is now heading into the biggest financial contraction since the Great Depression. And it’s one that liberal critics have seen coming for years, as conservatives systematically dismantled the economic foundations of the entire country. Good-paying jobs went offshore. Domestic investments in infrastructure and education were diverted to the war machine. Government oversight of banks and securities was blinded. Vast sections of the economy were sold off to the Saudis for oil, or to the Chinese for cheap consumer goods and money to finance tax cuts for the wealthy.

This is no way to run an economy, unless you’re a borrow-and-spend conservative determined to starve the government beast to the point where you can, as Grover Norquist proposed, drag it into the bathtub and drown it entirely. The current recession is the bill come due for 28 years of Republican financial malfeasance. It’s also another way in which conservatives themselves have unwittingly set up the historical preconditions for revolution.

7. Inept and Inconsistent Use of Force

The final criterion for revolution is this: The government no longer exercises force in a way that people find fair or consistent. And this can happen in all kinds of ways.

Domestically, there’s uneven sentencing, where some people get the maximum and others get cut loose without penalty – and neither outcome has any connection to the actual circumstances of the crime (though it often correlates all too closely with race, class, and the ability to afford a good lawyer). Unchecked police brutality (tasers, for example) that hardens public perception against the constabulary. Unwarranted police surveillance and legal harassment of law-abiding citizens going about their business. Different kinds of law enforcement for different neighborhoods. The use of government force to silence critics. And let’s not forget the unconstitutional restriction of free speech and free assembly rights.

Abroad, there’s the misuse of military force, which forces the country to pour its blood and treasure into misadventures that offer no clear advantage for the nation. These misadventures not only reduce the country’s international prestige and contribute to economic declines; they often create a class of displaced soldiers who return home with both the skills and the motivation to turn political unrest into a full-fledged shooting war.

This kind of capricious, irrational ineptitude in deploying government force leads to public contempt for the power of the state, and leads the governed to withdraw their consent. And, eventually, it also raises people’s determination to stand together to oppose state power. That growing solidarity and fearlessness – along with the resigned knowledge that equal-opportunity goons will brutalize loyalists and rebels alike, so you might as well be a dead lion rather than a live lamb – is the final factor that catalyzes ordinary citizens into ready and willing revolutionaries.

* * *

“A revolutionary state of mind requires the continued, even habitual but dynamic expectation of greater opportunity to satisfy basic needs…but the necessary additional ingredient is a persistent, unrelenting threat to the satisfaction of those needs: not a threat which actually returns people to a state of sheer survival but which put them in the mental state where they believe they will not be able to satisfy one or more basic needs….The crucial factor is the vague or specific fear that ground gained over a long period of time will be quickly lost… [This fear] generates when the existing government suppresses or is blamed for suppressing such opportunity.”

When Davies wrote that paragraph in 1962, he probably couldn’t have imagined how closely it would describe America in 2008. Thirty years of Republican corporatist government have failed us in ways that are not just inept or corrupt, but also have brought us to the same dangerous brink where so many other empires have erupted into violent revolution. The ground we have gained steadily over the course of the entire 20th Century is eroding under our feet. Movement conservatism has destroyed our economic base, declared open war on the middle and working classes, thwarted the aspirations of the intellectual and professional elites, dismantled the basic processes and functions of democracy, failed to prepare us for the future, overseen the collapse of our economy, and misused police and military force so inconsistently that Americans are losing respect for government.

It’s not always the case that revolution inevitably emerges wherever these seven conditions occur together, just as not everybody infected with a virus gets sick. But over the past 350 years, almost every major revolution in a modern industrialized country has been preceded by this pattern of seven preconditions. It’s fair to say that all those who get sick start out by being exposed to this virus.

Hillary Clinton is failing because this is a revolutionary moment – and she, regrettably, has the misfortune to be too closely identified with the mounting failures of the past that we’re now seeking to move beyond. On the other hand, Ron Paul’s otherwise inexplicable success has been built on his pointed and very specific critique of the kinds of government leadership failures I’ve described.

And Barack Obama is walking away with the moment because he talks of “hope” – which, as Davies makes clear, is the very first thing any would-be revolutionary needs. And then he talks of “change,” which many of his followers are clearly hearing as a soft word for “revolution.” And then he describes – not in too much detail – a different future, and what it means to be a transformative president, and in doing so answers our deep frustration at 30 years of leaders who faced the looming future by turning their heads instead of facing it.

Will he deliver on this promise of change? That remains to be seen. But the success of his presidency, if there is to be one, will likely be measured on how well his policies confront and deal with these seven criteria for revolution. If those preconditions are all still in place in 2012, the fury will have had another four years to rise. And at that point, if history rhymes, mere talk of hope and change will no longer be enough.

–Sara Robinson

Please note that the political opinions are those of Sara Robinson, not mine or the Natural Solutions Foundation. We are deeply concerned by what is happening to the United States and, with it, the rest of the developed world. Please note, too, that the Natural Solutions Foundation does not endorse or support candidates for office because, as a tax exempt organization, we are prohibited by the IRS from doing so. We do, however, work closely with the candidates and other important figures on issues pertaining to health freedom. For example, we wanted to know what the 16 Presidential Candidates had to say about Health Freedom so we asked them in our Health Freedom Score Card. We sent more than 93,000 faxes to the candidates then running for President of both parties asking them 19 tough questions about Health Freedom.

Only Ron Paul answered those questions. And, in fact, only Ron Paul has a health freedom plank in his campaign specifically addressing such issues as compulsory vaccination and other burning health freedom issues. While we cannot endorse any politicians, we can note their behavior and statements. We can also note with dismay that while Barack Obama’s campaign promised several times that the Senator would respond to our faxes shortly, that never happened. Hillary Clinton and all the Republican candidates with the exception of Dr. Paul chose to ignore our repeated requests for clarification on these issues with a strong consistency which does not, we fear, bode well for your health freedom no matter who becomes president. it is for this reason that our Congressional Education campaign is so vital to our health freedom. In fact, we are asking you not only for your tax deductible donations (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=189) to the Natural Solutions Foundation to keep us active and effective, but we are also asking you to support a non-tax deductible activity of the Natural Solutions Foundation, the creation of the Natural Solutions Health Freedom Alliance, a lobbying 501 (c) 4 organization which will be able to take our message about legislation we support and legislation we oppose directly to Congress at a whole new level of intensity. If you are interested in supporting a lobbying effort for our side, not just the drug and Codex industry side, send Ralph Fucetola an email at ralph.fucetola@usa.net with “Lobbying” as the subject line. Don’t forget to include your contact information.

Articles and analysis like this are important because they can generate thoughts and responses clarifying both the questions and the answers of our time. Please feel free to respond to this opinion piece by email to dr.laibow@gmail.com with “BLOG RESPONSE” to let us know your thoughts on this topic and perhaps we will publish them in “Your Stories” on our web page, www.HealthFreedomUSA.org.

Living in a free society means defending freedom on a continuing basis. That’s what you and we are doing together. The Natural Solutions Foundation is the largest, and most effective health freedom organization in the English speaking world. And we are that effective only because of you – your actions, your input and your financial support.

Thanks for your continuing support. Don’t forget to let the people on your list know that they can join the Natural Solutions Foundation Health Freedom eAlerts list (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=187) to find out what is happening and how to take meaningful action.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima

Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org