Showing posts with label population control / vaccination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population control / vaccination. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population
Fellow professors and scientists applause and roar approval at elite's twisted and genocidal population control agenda
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 3 2006
A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
Pianka's speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.
Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.
Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.
Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”
Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of bird flu and spoke glowingly of China's enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”
At the end of Pianka's speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clammered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.
One horrified observer was able to make notes on the speech and our gratitude goes to Forrest M. Mims for bringing this sickening display to the attention of the world.
Throughout history elites have invented justification for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations. Up until the 19th century, the transatlantic slave trade was justified by saying that the practice was biblical and therefore morally redeemable in nature, despite the fact that no such bible passage exists.
From 1932 until 1972, the Tuskegee Study Group (pictured below) deliberately infected poor black communities in Alabama with syphilis without their consent and withheld treatment as the diseased rampaged through the town killing families.
Pianka's doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which Mims claims he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries is it expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.
Think about the magnitude of Pianka's statements. He wants to kill nine out of every ten members of your family and he wants to kill them in one of the most painful and agonizing ways imaginable.
If Pianka, or 'The Lizard Man' as he likes to be called, is so vehement in the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it.
Will the students who so enthusiastically greeted his ideas go home and kill themselves for the cause if it is so righteous?
It was noted how Pianka presented his argument with the kind of glee that you would see in a demented serial killer before dispatching his victim. This is an attitude we have encountered again and again. To discuss killing 90% of the world's population via a horrific plague is sick enough within itself but you would at least expect its advocates to be serious and sober in their approach to the subject. The opposite seems to be the case, where the subject is aired in a context of lighthearted lip-smacking and hand-rubbing as if the individual was about to sink his teeth into a T-bone steak.
This window gives us a clear view of exactly why these deranged bastards encompass this ideology. They love death and their lives are motivated by dark influences very different to you or I.
In the 21st century the elite are concerned that from over 6 billion people might spring a new elite to challenge their stranglehold on the reigns of power. This is one reason for desire to cull the population down to a manageable level. Another is control over the behavior of the existing serfs and herding them like cattle into the slaughter house.
As we have documented, members of the elite are quite open in their feverish lust to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests," says:
"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S."
Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.
One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:
"The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer...."
"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it."
The Melbourne Age reported on recently uncovered documents detailing Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet's plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia.
Pianka's ideology is in the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot, and the rest of history's despots who advocated mass extermination and had the temerity to dress it up in a 'noble' Straussian facade. We demand that he be investigated for openly calling for mass murder and in the meantime we encourage everyone toand e mail Pianka, enabling him to receive your feedback about his wish that you and your entire family die.
Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 3 2006
A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka's chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite's agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
Pianka's speech was ordered to be kept off the record before it began as cameras were turned away and hundreds of students, scientists and professors sat in attendance.
Saying the public was not ready to hear the information presented, Pianka began by exclaiming, “We're no better than bacteria!”, as he jumped into a doomsday malthusian rant about overpopulation destroying the earth.
Standing in front of a slide of human skulls, Pianka gleefully advocated airborne ebola as his preferred method of exterminating the necessary 90% of humans, choosing it over AIDS because of its faster kill period. Ebola victims suffer the most tortuous deaths imaginable as the virus kills by liquefying the internal organs. The body literally dissolves as the victim writhes in pain bleeding from every orifice.
Pianka then cited the Peak Oil fraud as another reason to initiate global genocide. “And the fossil fuels are running out,” he said, “so I think we may have to cut back to two billion, which would be about one-third as many people.”
Later, the scientist welcomed the potential devastation of bird flu and spoke glowingly of China's enforced one child policy, before zestfully commenting, “We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth.”
At the end of Pianka's speech the audience erupted not to a chorus of boos and hisses but to a raucous reception of applause and cheers as audience members clammered to get close to the scientist to ask him follow up questions. Pianka was later presented with a distinguished scientist award by the Academy. Pianka is no crackpot. He has given lectures to prestigious universities worldwide.
One horrified observer was able to make notes on the speech and our gratitude goes to Forrest M. Mims for bringing this sickening display to the attention of the world.
Throughout history elites have invented justification for barbaric practices as a cover for their true agenda of absolute power and control over populations. Up until the 19th century, the transatlantic slave trade was justified by saying that the practice was biblical and therefore morally redeemable in nature, despite the fact that no such bible passage exists.
From 1932 until 1972, the Tuskegee Study Group (pictured below) deliberately infected poor black communities in Alabama with syphilis without their consent and withheld treatment as the diseased rampaged through the town killing families.
Pianka's doomsday warning of the population bomb, for which Mims claims he presented no evidence whatsoever, is complete pseudo-science. Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries is it expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. Conservation International's own study revealed that 46% of the earth's surface was an untouched wilderness, that is land areas not including sea. It is commonly accepted that the entire world population could all fit into the state of Texas and each have an acre of their own land.
Think about the magnitude of Pianka's statements. He wants to kill nine out of every ten members of your family and he wants to kill them in one of the most painful and agonizing ways imaginable.
If Pianka, or 'The Lizard Man' as he likes to be called, is so vehement in the necessity of culling the human population will he step forward to be the first one in line? Will he sacrifice his children for the so-called greater good of the planet? We somehow doubt it.
Will the students who so enthusiastically greeted his ideas go home and kill themselves for the cause if it is so righteous?
It was noted how Pianka presented his argument with the kind of glee that you would see in a demented serial killer before dispatching his victim. This is an attitude we have encountered again and again. To discuss killing 90% of the world's population via a horrific plague is sick enough within itself but you would at least expect its advocates to be serious and sober in their approach to the subject. The opposite seems to be the case, where the subject is aired in a context of lighthearted lip-smacking and hand-rubbing as if the individual was about to sink his teeth into a T-bone steak.
This window gives us a clear view of exactly why these deranged bastards encompass this ideology. They love death and their lives are motivated by dark influences very different to you or I.
In the 21st century the elite are concerned that from over 6 billion people might spring a new elite to challenge their stranglehold on the reigns of power. This is one reason for desire to cull the population down to a manageable level. Another is control over the behavior of the existing serfs and herding them like cattle into the slaughter house.
As we have documented, members of the elite are quite open in their feverish lust to commit mass murder and ethnic cleansing. In the foreword to his biography If I Were An Animal, Prince Philip wrote, "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled "Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests," says:
"Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that "depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries ... Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S."
Kissinger prepared a depopulation manifesto for President Jimmy Carter called 'Global 2000' which detailed using food as a weapon to depopulate the third world.
One of the most chilling admissions of deadly intent came from the lips of the late Jacques Cousteau, the sainted environmental icon. In an interview with the UNESCO Courier for November 1991 the famed oceanographer said:
"The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics — it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangaladeshes. The damage is directly linked to consumption. Our society is turning toward more and needless consumption. It is a vicious circle that I compare to cancer...."
"This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it."
The Melbourne Age reported on recently uncovered documents detailing Nobel Peace Prize winning microbiologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet's plan to help the Australian government develop biological weapons for use against Indonesia and other "overpopulated" countries of South-East Asia.
Pianka's ideology is in the same league as Hitler, Pol Pot, and the rest of history's despots who advocated mass extermination and had the temerity to dress it up in a 'noble' Straussian facade. We demand that he be investigated for openly calling for mass murder and in the meantime we encourage everyone to
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Ted Turner’s United Nations Foundation: Making the UN a Pawn for Tax-Exempt Special Interests
Almost 18 months after Time-Warner vice-chairman Ted Turner announced he would give $1 billion to the United Nations, serious questions remain about the nature and influence of his "gift."
One concern is technical and legal: Turner’s money is being channeled to the UN through a private foundation and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. But the UN is strictly prohibited by its own charter from accepting contributions not from member nations. Questions raised about this practice have not been fully answered by the UN.
Another concern is legislative and constitutional: Turner’s United Nations Foundation has very close ties to the Clinton administration and appears to be furthering the interests of certain State Department officials. Could Turner’s foundation be using private funds to help federal bureaucrats skirt funding roadblocks erected by Congress?
The final concern is political: Turner’s financial support for UN activities threatens to exert undue influence over UN policy and international relations. As is typical for the outspoken billionaire, the activities funded by Turner’s foundation are controversial and even raise serious human rights concerns. Moreover, in some cases, they ignore official U.S. policy to pursue the personal agendas of the foundation’s trustees.
No Surprises
When Turner announced his $1 billion donation last September, the media described the gift in glowing terms. Turner would help the UN with much-needed funds to take care of children, women and the environment.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Turner a "world citizen extra-ordinaire." The New York Times described the proposal as "probably the single largest charitable donation in history." And it earned Turner a cover story in Newsweek, which quoted him as saying he was "putting the rich on notice" to follow his lead. There was even talk that Turner might be awarded the Nobel Prize.
But when Foundation Watch took a closer look at Turner’s plans in December 1997, we characterized Turner’s gift as "an opportunity to pursue his liberal social agenda through a powerful association of national governments." The UN Foundation was never intended to serve the UN members’ interests or needs, but to expand UN programs on population control, environmental regulation and other personal interests of Turner’s.
The media mogul’s leftist political views are well-known. He is one of many who slept in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House because of his strong support for President Bill Clinton. He has associated with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who allowed Turner’s Cable News Network (CNN) to become the first U.S.-based news organization with a Havana bureau since the Communist takeover. Turner’s wife, actress Jane Fonda, achieved notoriety for supporting the Communist side during the Vietnam war.
However, Turner’s personal politics may not be the only driving force behind the UN Foundation. Certainly the timing of his gift fueled the battle in Congress over U.S. payment of its alleged $1.5 billion debt to the UN. Clinton administration officials and others who advocate more UN funding may see the UN Foundation as a way to support activities not currently funded by UN member states, especially the U.S.
Indeed, Turner announced his gift at a dinner sponsored by the United Nations Association of the U.S., a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises private funds and advocates more federal support for UN activities. In recent years, the UN Association has complained bitterly about the U.S. failure to pay its "debt" to the UN. The Association has even urged consideration of a global tax to alleviate the UN’s financial problems.
Elaborate Structure
The UN Foundation’s first year of operation has provided clues to its structure and relationship with the UN, but many questions remain unanswered.
Turner’s gift, it turns out, is not as generous as described in media reports. An amount of up to $1 billion will be donated in the form of Time-Warner stock in ten annual installments. The cost to Turner could be significantly less than $1 billion if he takes advantage of tax write-offs, tax deductions and ways to avoid estate taxes. Amazingly, USA Today claims "Turner, or at least his heirs, could end up $100 million richer because he’s giving a billion away."
Moreover, the donation will be made not to the UN directly, but to Turner’s private UN Foundation. The foundation is tax-exempt under U.S. law and has no legal affiliation with the UN.
The UN and the UN Foundation have completed a 20-page agreement governing the use of foundation grants. According to the agreement, UN Secretary-General Annan will review grant applications before asking for approval from the UN Foundation board. But foundation grants will be disbursed by UN officials.
Annan has created his own bureaucracy to manage the money. The UN Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) is led by Miles Stoby of Guyana, the former Deputy Executive Coordinator for UN Reform. To demonstrate the importance of Ted Turner’s funds to the UN, Annan has announced that Stoby will report directly to him, and Stoby’s post will be at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.
The Better World Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the same leadership and trustees as the UN Foundation, will coordinate "public education" on behalf of the UN. It aims to create "a broader constituency of citizens, organizations and businesses with a deeper commitment to international cooperation through the United Nations."
The agreement was signed by Hans Corell, UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, and UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth. Atlanta attorney J. Rutherford Seydel II is listed as a recipient of any notices stemming from "disputes" between the foundation and UNFIP. Seydel is also listed in official papers as the legal representative for Jane Fonda’s new foundation. (See related article on page 1.) Any disputes will be resolved by an international arbitration panel.
The agreement offers no clues about the UN’s justification for accepting private foundation funds, which is a violation of the UN Charter. Article 17, Section 2 of the charter states that UN expenses "shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly." This requirement is supposed to prevent private interests like the UN Foundation from exercising undue influence over the world body.
This author has repeatedly asked UN officials and members of Congress to provide a legal justification for the UN’s acceptance of UN Foundation grants. Concerns about the foundation’s activities were first expressed in an October 1997 letter to Joe Sills, then director of the UN Information Office in Washington, DC:
"The UN Charter says the expenses of the organization shall be borne by the member-states. How, then, can the UN accept any money from a source outside of the member-states, such as a foundation, business or individual?
"What is the tax status of the UN in the U.S.? Can U.S. citizens make tax-deductible contributions to the UN?"
No answers have been provided, although the UN’s legal department is supposedly studying the matter. However, it is known that contributions to the UN are not tax-deductible in the U.S. — thus Turner’s elaborate setup to funnel $1 billion to the UN through a tax-exempt foundation.
Radical Leaders
The UN Foundation’s trustees share a globalist outlook, and most of them have a long association with the UN. The board includes Turner as chairman and Timothy Wirth as president.
Wirth is a former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs (1993-1997) and Colorado Democratic Senator (1987-1993). Before leaving the State Department, Wirth promoted the implementation of the global warming treaty. Even if the global warming theory is wrong, he has said, "we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." A former official of Planned Parenthood in Colorado, Wirth is a crusader for population control and abortion rights.
The involvement of UN Foundation trustee Maurice Strong, long regarded as a possible candidate for UN Secretary-General, is also significant. The Canadian, a longtime friend of Turner and Wirth, has been involved in UN activities for more than 30 years. In 1997, Strong served as Executive Coordinator for UN Reform under Annan, and his deputy was UNFIP director Miles Stoby. He also chaired the 1992 Earth Summit.
During the early 1990s, Strong was a key member of the independent Commission on Global Governance, an international organization funded by the MacArthur Foundation. The Commission published the 1995 report Our Global Neighborhood, calling for a vast expansion of UN resources and activities through the imposition of a global tax. (See Foundation Watch, September 1996.)
A wealthy Canadian who lived in Colorado in the 1980s, Strong came under scrutiny by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during its campaign finance investigation in 1997. Strong, who is not a U.S. citizen, made a $20,000 contribution to the Democratic National Committee and gave $1,500 to two congressional campaigns in 1988. Strong said he made the contributions "because I wanted influence in the United States." But U.S. law prohibits contributions by foreign nationals unless they have a green card and intend to make the U.S. their permanent residence.
Interestingly, Strong’s activities in Colorado also included formation of a group called the North American Institute to encourage passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). One of those involved in the effort was John Wirth, brother of Timothy.
Other UN Foundation trustees include Brazilian first lady Ruth Cardoso, an international AIDS activist and a participant in the UN’s 1996 Habitat II conference; Graca Machel, the former first lady of Mozambique and a UN-designated children’s rights advocate; Emma Rothschild, a British associate of Strong who champions environment and disarmament causes; Andrew Young, U.S. ambassador to the UN during the Carter administration; and Pakistani Muhammad Yunus, an economist who has accused financial institutions of shortchanging the poor.
Target: Human Race
The first round of 22 UN Foundation grants was announced on May 20, 1998 and totaled almost $22.2 million. Another round of 17 grants was announced last September, totalling more than $32.8 million. The grants confirm the Foundation’s liberal bent and selective grantmaking.
Two UN agencies received more than 50 percent of the first-year grants: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) received almost $12.2 million, and $18.6 million went to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Both agencies are involved in controversial projects to encourage and assist abortions and other population control measures.
Another big recipient of UN Foundation funds is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is linked to UNICEF and UNFPA through a "Coordinating Committee on Health." Last year, WHO received two UN Foundation grants totalling almost $9 million. An additional grant worth $2.8 million was awarded jointly to WHO and UNICEF.
It is no surprise that a sizeable portion of the UN Foundation’s grants support UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO. These agencies have been criticized for their population control activities and complacency regarding human rights abuses, and from the outset Turner announced that his foundation would support population control.
Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon asked in a May 5, 1998 Wall Street Journal column whether the UN was being manipulated by Turner and his associates to maintain an aggressive campaign to reduce the human population "by any means possible."
Examples of UN Foundation grants supporting population control include UNFPA grants for "the delivery of family planning services" to reduce high fertility rates in Bolivia, the Comoros, Lebanon and the Philippines. Other grants encourage journalists to cover population control issues and target adolescent girls for family planning services.
Turner has a long history of support for population control activities. Turner and wife Jane Fonda served as "Goodwill Ambassadors" for UNFPA. Fonda now leads a Georgia campaign against teen pregnancy, partly funded by a private condom maker.
According to Nicholas Eberstadt, a population expert with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., Turner is on record in favor of a radical policy that Eberstadt calls "de-population." As recently as last month, the father of five children called for a worldwide one-child-per-family policy to reduce the world population. "We could do it in a very humane way, if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years," Turner told participants at the annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in Washington, D.C.
Once honored as "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association, Turner’s stridency on population control has earned him a reputation as an anti-Christian bigot. In remarks last October to the Society of Environmental Journalists, he complained that the Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes "dominion over everything" and "increase and multiply." Turner once told a Dallas Morning News reporter that Christianity is "a religion for losers" and "I don’t want anybody [i.e., Jesus Christ] to die for me."
Wirth also is no stranger to population control efforts. In addition to his Planned Parenthood work in Colorado, Wirth led the State Depart-ment’s defense of a Clinton administration decision to deport several Chinese women who sought asylum in the U.S. to avoid forced abortion and sterilization in their native country.
At the urging of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Congress has cut off federal funds for UNFPA because the agency has been accused of compliance with the brutal Chinese population control program of one-child-per-family. Congressional hearings have disclosed that the Chinese government has forced many women to have abortions when they exceeded their one-child limit. Some women have testified that they were physically assaulted and forced to undergo abortions when they tried to carry a second child to term. In some cases, baby girls were allegedly abandoned or starved to death in government-run orphanages because of China’s cultural preference for male children.
Congressman Smith says UNFPA also has supplied abortion devices and drugs to refugees, displaced persons and "other poor and vulnerable women around the world."
UNICEF has been under increasing scrutiny since the Vatican decided two years ago to withdraw its support for the agency because of its involvement in population control programs. The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, a UN-recognized non-governmental organization (NGO), observes, "Particular concern has centered on UNICEF’s involvement in the drafting of a field manual for use by relief workers in refugee camps. The manual specifically called for the provision of vacuum aspirators that are used for abortions." UNICEF is headed by an ardent feminist, Carol Bellamy, a former New York City official and Democratic mayoral candidate.
Lack of Funds?
Many UN Foundation grants to UNFPA and UNICEF do not reflect an aggressive population control agenda. For example, some grants support UNICEF for "the eradication of polio" and for distributing "vitamin supplements to save mothers’ lives." WHO was granted almost $5.2 million as part of the UN Foundation program "Global Health Leadership for the 21st Century." This is described as a partnership between the Rockefeller Foundation and the UN Foundation to support WHO director-general Gro Brundtland "in her efforts to revitalize the organization," which has been plagued by scandal and corruption.
But critics complain that such grants, even when they support laudable efforts, still help underwrite population control activities. Indeed, when the Vatican requested that its financial contributions to UNICEF be directed into projects with no relation to abortion, UNICEF officials said they could not comply. The problem is that grants to UN agencies are "fungible," meaning that despite their intended purposes, they free up funds in agency budgets so officials can reallocate revenues to population control efforts.
The likelihood of shifting such funds increases if there are severe budget constraints, as UNICEF and UNFPA leaders claim. Shortly after Turner’s announcement of his $1 billion gift, officials of these two agencies and the UN Development Program (UNDP) issued a statement saluting Turner’s "extremely generous and socially conscious decision." They claimed the funds would arrive at a "crucial moment" for the UN as it grapples with "dwindling resources to meet a growing array of vital needs." The implication was that Turner’s private funds might fill the gap created by a failure or reluctance of UN member governments to fund those agencies.
The alleged funding gap may also explain the U.S. State Department’s close connection to UN Foundation efforts. Because Timothy Wirth leads the foundation, some communication with the Clinton administration is to be expected. But could the State Department be influencing the UN Foundation to provide private funds for programs and policies that are opposed by influential members of Congress whom the Administration does not want to confront?
A recent encounter suggests the relationship is worthy of investigation. At a January 15 press conference on population matters in Washington, D.C., Wirth associate Ellen Marshall appeared with Frank E. Loy, Wirth’s successor as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Marshall, who is responsible for women’s issues at the UN Foundation, left the Clinton State Department with Wirth.
At the press conference, Marshall described the UN Foundation’s $1.1 million grant for an NGO and Youth forum held the previous month in The Hague, Netherlands to review the platform of the controversial 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo. The grant was meant to enable the NGOs to review the ICPD platform and work on strategies to implement the Cairo platform. It was funneled through UNFPA.
Marshall said she helped draft a controversial presidential decision directive (PDD) on population issues when she was a State Department official. The June 1, 1994 PDD proposed to reduce "the rate of population growth as rapidly as possible to levels consistent with sustainable development" through close cooperation with the UN. The document said the U.S. would continue to support "population assistance programs" primarily through the Agency for International Development, and would provide "adequate resources" to UNFPA, WHO and other UN agencies.
But Marshall said the State Depart-ment’s draft PDD on population issues was abandoned in favor of adopting the official "program of action" of the Cairo conference as official U.S. policy. This platform stopped just short of endorsing abortion as a method of family planning because of the opposition of the Vatican and some Third World countries.
According to Marshall, "There was a great deal of work done trying to reassess what the policy should be. That also happened to coincide with the International Conference on Population and Development. So rather than have a U.S. policy on international [population issues], the United States participated in this international discussion and looked to the ICPD program of action as its official position. So while there is no PDD, there is the United States endorsing the ICPD program of action as its policy statement.... It was a very conscious decision."
It is clear that when the UN Foundation supported the Netherlands follow-up conference, Marshall as a private foundation official was furthering a population policy she developed and the State Department endorsed through the UN conference. But the State Department’s apparent deference to a private grantmaker for help with funding its agenda — which includes activities opposed by influential members of Congress — raises important questions about the relationship of the UN Foundation and the Clinton administration.
Greening the Earth
The UN Foundation is also using its grants to assist UN efforts to secure compliance with the global warming treaty, also known as the Kyoto Protocol.
Last year, the foundation granted $1 million to the UN Industrial Development Organization and more than $1.2 million to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. The grants support creation of an emissions-trading system, a concept backed by the White House as part of the global warming treaty. The system would allow U.S. firms to exceed UN treaty limits on fossil fuel emissions by purchasing pollution credits from other countries or transferring technology to the Third World. One element of the project — "assistance to governments in defining adequate domestic regulatory and supervisory frameworks" — suggests the extent to which UN Foundation money will subsidize government regulatory agencies.
The UN Foundation has committed another $900,000 for "Post-Kyoto Climate Change Policies" in China. The grant will support the development of public policies to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions. The funds will be channeled through the World Resources Institute (WRI) and UNDP, which is headed by Clinton appointee and WRI founder James Gustave Speth. Speth is reportedly leaving his UNDP post in June to help Vice President Gore run for president.
There is a serious political problem with the UN Foundation’s grants: they support the implementation of a treaty that has not been ratified by — or even submitted to — the U.S. Senate. Most observers say that the pact, if submitted, would fail by a wide margin because it could cripple our industrial economy, while major fossil fuel emitters like China flatly refuse to sign or abide by it.
Other UN Foundation grants for environmental projects are less controversial. A $650,000 grant to the UN Environment Program (UNEP) supports efforts to reduce the impact of El Nino-related emergencies, and a $2.4 million grant helps African cities to develop better water management systems. But what can be expected from a $350,000 grant to let young people assess the state of the global environment?
Controversial Grants
Turner has never been afraid to leap into controversy, and the UN Foundation has followed his lead. While many of the 1998 foundation grants support worthy projects — like eradicating Guinea Worm disease in Africa or fighting slave and drug trafficking — some grants deserve closer inspection.
For example, a 1998 grant made jointly to WHO and UNICEF supports their efforts to promote "long-term strategies" to ensure "tobacco-free children and youth." No doubt the U.S. tobacco control movement is going global. Once again, children are the excuse for new taxes and regulation on the tobacco industry. The UN Foundation claims "this project is the single largest grant ever made to prevent and discourage international tobacco use among children and adolescents."
On the other hand, another UN Foundation grant is promising despite some controversy. The grant provides more than $3 million over two years to UNICEF for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa and Asia. The disease is a major problem in Third World countries, and the most tragic victims are the young. Babies whose mothers are HIV-positive have about a 28 percent chance of contracting the virus through breast milk.
Since last June, UNICEF has launched pilot projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America which support HIV-positive women who choose not to breast-feed. With UN Foundation funding, UNICEF counsels mothers about the risk of HIV transmission through breast-feeding and provides milk substitutes "for up to six months if necessary."
Thus UNICEF and the UN Foundation seem to be moving in a direction encouraged by groups like the Foundation for Democracy in Africa, which accuses UNICEF of helping to spread AIDS under its former policy of promoting breast-feeding exclusively. In this case, the UN Foundation may be having a positive impact on the policies of a UN agency.
Conclusion
Ted Turner’s dedication to the UN is well-known. He flies the UN flag over CNN Center in Atlanta and bans the use of the word "foreign" on CNN broadcasts.
But while Turner’s money could prove successful in revitalizing controversial UN agencies, it could also lead to increasing private involvement in the affairs of the world organization. Indeed, some have suggested using private funds to alleviate all the UN’s financial problems, including the so-called U.S. "debt."
For political reasons, Secretary-General Annan has ruled that out, saying that UN Foundation grants will not offset America’s $1.5 billion debt because the world body cannot accept contributions from private citizens for that purpose. But if this is true, how can private citizens make contributions to the UN for any purpose at all?
Private funding for the UN makes congressional attempts to de-fund the UN or its agencies almost irrelevant. This might cheer supporters of privatization or implacable opponents of the UN. But is also undercuts those who hope U.S. government financial pressure might force much-needed UN reforms. A few billionaires could further the transformation of the UN from a collection of member-states to the pawn of tax-exempt special interests. That, of course, is a serious threat to American interests and perhaps to the UN itself.
One concern is technical and legal: Turner’s money is being channeled to the UN through a private foundation and a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. But the UN is strictly prohibited by its own charter from accepting contributions not from member nations. Questions raised about this practice have not been fully answered by the UN.
Another concern is legislative and constitutional: Turner’s United Nations Foundation has very close ties to the Clinton administration and appears to be furthering the interests of certain State Department officials. Could Turner’s foundation be using private funds to help federal bureaucrats skirt funding roadblocks erected by Congress?
The final concern is political: Turner’s financial support for UN activities threatens to exert undue influence over UN policy and international relations. As is typical for the outspoken billionaire, the activities funded by Turner’s foundation are controversial and even raise serious human rights concerns. Moreover, in some cases, they ignore official U.S. policy to pursue the personal agendas of the foundation’s trustees.
No Surprises
When Turner announced his $1 billion donation last September, the media described the gift in glowing terms. Turner would help the UN with much-needed funds to take care of children, women and the environment.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called Turner a "world citizen extra-ordinaire." The New York Times described the proposal as "probably the single largest charitable donation in history." And it earned Turner a cover story in Newsweek, which quoted him as saying he was "putting the rich on notice" to follow his lead. There was even talk that Turner might be awarded the Nobel Prize.
But when Foundation Watch took a closer look at Turner’s plans in December 1997, we characterized Turner’s gift as "an opportunity to pursue his liberal social agenda through a powerful association of national governments." The UN Foundation was never intended to serve the UN members’ interests or needs, but to expand UN programs on population control, environmental regulation and other personal interests of Turner’s.
The media mogul’s leftist political views are well-known. He is one of many who slept in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House because of his strong support for President Bill Clinton. He has associated with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, who allowed Turner’s Cable News Network (CNN) to become the first U.S.-based news organization with a Havana bureau since the Communist takeover. Turner’s wife, actress Jane Fonda, achieved notoriety for supporting the Communist side during the Vietnam war.
However, Turner’s personal politics may not be the only driving force behind the UN Foundation. Certainly the timing of his gift fueled the battle in Congress over U.S. payment of its alleged $1.5 billion debt to the UN. Clinton administration officials and others who advocate more UN funding may see the UN Foundation as a way to support activities not currently funded by UN member states, especially the U.S.
Indeed, Turner announced his gift at a dinner sponsored by the United Nations Association of the U.S., a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises private funds and advocates more federal support for UN activities. In recent years, the UN Association has complained bitterly about the U.S. failure to pay its "debt" to the UN. The Association has even urged consideration of a global tax to alleviate the UN’s financial problems.
Elaborate Structure
The UN Foundation’s first year of operation has provided clues to its structure and relationship with the UN, but many questions remain unanswered.
Turner’s gift, it turns out, is not as generous as described in media reports. An amount of up to $1 billion will be donated in the form of Time-Warner stock in ten annual installments. The cost to Turner could be significantly less than $1 billion if he takes advantage of tax write-offs, tax deductions and ways to avoid estate taxes. Amazingly, USA Today claims "Turner, or at least his heirs, could end up $100 million richer because he’s giving a billion away."
Moreover, the donation will be made not to the UN directly, but to Turner’s private UN Foundation. The foundation is tax-exempt under U.S. law and has no legal affiliation with the UN.
The UN and the UN Foundation have completed a 20-page agreement governing the use of foundation grants. According to the agreement, UN Secretary-General Annan will review grant applications before asking for approval from the UN Foundation board. But foundation grants will be disbursed by UN officials.
Annan has created his own bureaucracy to manage the money. The UN Fund for International Partnerships (UNFIP) is led by Miles Stoby of Guyana, the former Deputy Executive Coordinator for UN Reform. To demonstrate the importance of Ted Turner’s funds to the UN, Annan has announced that Stoby will report directly to him, and Stoby’s post will be at the level of Assistant Secretary-General.
The Better World Fund, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit under the same leadership and trustees as the UN Foundation, will coordinate "public education" on behalf of the UN. It aims to create "a broader constituency of citizens, organizations and businesses with a deeper commitment to international cooperation through the United Nations."
The agreement was signed by Hans Corell, UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, and UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth. Atlanta attorney J. Rutherford Seydel II is listed as a recipient of any notices stemming from "disputes" between the foundation and UNFIP. Seydel is also listed in official papers as the legal representative for Jane Fonda’s new foundation. (See related article on page 1.) Any disputes will be resolved by an international arbitration panel.
The agreement offers no clues about the UN’s justification for accepting private foundation funds, which is a violation of the UN Charter. Article 17, Section 2 of the charter states that UN expenses "shall be borne by the Members as apportioned by the General Assembly." This requirement is supposed to prevent private interests like the UN Foundation from exercising undue influence over the world body.
This author has repeatedly asked UN officials and members of Congress to provide a legal justification for the UN’s acceptance of UN Foundation grants. Concerns about the foundation’s activities were first expressed in an October 1997 letter to Joe Sills, then director of the UN Information Office in Washington, DC:
"The UN Charter says the expenses of the organization shall be borne by the member-states. How, then, can the UN accept any money from a source outside of the member-states, such as a foundation, business or individual?
"What is the tax status of the UN in the U.S.? Can U.S. citizens make tax-deductible contributions to the UN?"
No answers have been provided, although the UN’s legal department is supposedly studying the matter. However, it is known that contributions to the UN are not tax-deductible in the U.S. — thus Turner’s elaborate setup to funnel $1 billion to the UN through a tax-exempt foundation.
Radical Leaders
The UN Foundation’s trustees share a globalist outlook, and most of them have a long association with the UN. The board includes Turner as chairman and Timothy Wirth as president.
Wirth is a former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs (1993-1997) and Colorado Democratic Senator (1987-1993). Before leaving the State Department, Wirth promoted the implementation of the global warming treaty. Even if the global warming theory is wrong, he has said, "we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." A former official of Planned Parenthood in Colorado, Wirth is a crusader for population control and abortion rights.
The involvement of UN Foundation trustee Maurice Strong, long regarded as a possible candidate for UN Secretary-General, is also significant. The Canadian, a longtime friend of Turner and Wirth, has been involved in UN activities for more than 30 years. In 1997, Strong served as Executive Coordinator for UN Reform under Annan, and his deputy was UNFIP director Miles Stoby. He also chaired the 1992 Earth Summit.
During the early 1990s, Strong was a key member of the independent Commission on Global Governance, an international organization funded by the MacArthur Foundation. The Commission published the 1995 report Our Global Neighborhood, calling for a vast expansion of UN resources and activities through the imposition of a global tax. (See Foundation Watch, September 1996.)
A wealthy Canadian who lived in Colorado in the 1980s, Strong came under scrutiny by the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during its campaign finance investigation in 1997. Strong, who is not a U.S. citizen, made a $20,000 contribution to the Democratic National Committee and gave $1,500 to two congressional campaigns in 1988. Strong said he made the contributions "because I wanted influence in the United States." But U.S. law prohibits contributions by foreign nationals unless they have a green card and intend to make the U.S. their permanent residence.
Interestingly, Strong’s activities in Colorado also included formation of a group called the North American Institute to encourage passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). One of those involved in the effort was John Wirth, brother of Timothy.
Other UN Foundation trustees include Brazilian first lady Ruth Cardoso, an international AIDS activist and a participant in the UN’s 1996 Habitat II conference; Graca Machel, the former first lady of Mozambique and a UN-designated children’s rights advocate; Emma Rothschild, a British associate of Strong who champions environment and disarmament causes; Andrew Young, U.S. ambassador to the UN during the Carter administration; and Pakistani Muhammad Yunus, an economist who has accused financial institutions of shortchanging the poor.
Target: Human Race
The first round of 22 UN Foundation grants was announced on May 20, 1998 and totaled almost $22.2 million. Another round of 17 grants was announced last September, totalling more than $32.8 million. The grants confirm the Foundation’s liberal bent and selective grantmaking.
Two UN agencies received more than 50 percent of the first-year grants: the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) received almost $12.2 million, and $18.6 million went to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Both agencies are involved in controversial projects to encourage and assist abortions and other population control measures.
Another big recipient of UN Foundation funds is the World Health Organization (WHO), which is linked to UNICEF and UNFPA through a "Coordinating Committee on Health." Last year, WHO received two UN Foundation grants totalling almost $9 million. An additional grant worth $2.8 million was awarded jointly to WHO and UNICEF.
It is no surprise that a sizeable portion of the UN Foundation’s grants support UNFPA, UNICEF and WHO. These agencies have been criticized for their population control activities and complacency regarding human rights abuses, and from the outset Turner announced that his foundation would support population control.
Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon asked in a May 5, 1998 Wall Street Journal column whether the UN was being manipulated by Turner and his associates to maintain an aggressive campaign to reduce the human population "by any means possible."
Examples of UN Foundation grants supporting population control include UNFPA grants for "the delivery of family planning services" to reduce high fertility rates in Bolivia, the Comoros, Lebanon and the Philippines. Other grants encourage journalists to cover population control issues and target adolescent girls for family planning services.
Turner has a long history of support for population control activities. Turner and wife Jane Fonda served as "Goodwill Ambassadors" for UNFPA. Fonda now leads a Georgia campaign against teen pregnancy, partly funded by a private condom maker.
According to Nicholas Eberstadt, a population expert with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., Turner is on record in favor of a radical policy that Eberstadt calls "de-population." As recently as last month, the father of five children called for a worldwide one-child-per-family policy to reduce the world population. "We could do it in a very humane way, if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100 years," Turner told participants at the annual meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association in Washington, D.C.
Once honored as "Humanist of the Year" by the American Humanist Association, Turner’s stridency on population control has earned him a reputation as an anti-Christian bigot. In remarks last October to the Society of Environmental Journalists, he complained that the Judeo-Christian tradition emphasizes "dominion over everything" and "increase and multiply." Turner once told a Dallas Morning News reporter that Christianity is "a religion for losers" and "I don’t want anybody [i.e., Jesus Christ] to die for me."
Wirth also is no stranger to population control efforts. In addition to his Planned Parenthood work in Colorado, Wirth led the State Depart-ment’s defense of a Clinton administration decision to deport several Chinese women who sought asylum in the U.S. to avoid forced abortion and sterilization in their native country.
At the urging of Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), chairman of the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, Congress has cut off federal funds for UNFPA because the agency has been accused of compliance with the brutal Chinese population control program of one-child-per-family. Congressional hearings have disclosed that the Chinese government has forced many women to have abortions when they exceeded their one-child limit. Some women have testified that they were physically assaulted and forced to undergo abortions when they tried to carry a second child to term. In some cases, baby girls were allegedly abandoned or starved to death in government-run orphanages because of China’s cultural preference for male children.
Congressman Smith says UNFPA also has supplied abortion devices and drugs to refugees, displaced persons and "other poor and vulnerable women around the world."
UNICEF has been under increasing scrutiny since the Vatican decided two years ago to withdraw its support for the agency because of its involvement in population control programs. The Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, a UN-recognized non-governmental organization (NGO), observes, "Particular concern has centered on UNICEF’s involvement in the drafting of a field manual for use by relief workers in refugee camps. The manual specifically called for the provision of vacuum aspirators that are used for abortions." UNICEF is headed by an ardent feminist, Carol Bellamy, a former New York City official and Democratic mayoral candidate.
Lack of Funds?
Many UN Foundation grants to UNFPA and UNICEF do not reflect an aggressive population control agenda. For example, some grants support UNICEF for "the eradication of polio" and for distributing "vitamin supplements to save mothers’ lives." WHO was granted almost $5.2 million as part of the UN Foundation program "Global Health Leadership for the 21st Century." This is described as a partnership between the Rockefeller Foundation and the UN Foundation to support WHO director-general Gro Brundtland "in her efforts to revitalize the organization," which has been plagued by scandal and corruption.
But critics complain that such grants, even when they support laudable efforts, still help underwrite population control activities. Indeed, when the Vatican requested that its financial contributions to UNICEF be directed into projects with no relation to abortion, UNICEF officials said they could not comply. The problem is that grants to UN agencies are "fungible," meaning that despite their intended purposes, they free up funds in agency budgets so officials can reallocate revenues to population control efforts.
The likelihood of shifting such funds increases if there are severe budget constraints, as UNICEF and UNFPA leaders claim. Shortly after Turner’s announcement of his $1 billion gift, officials of these two agencies and the UN Development Program (UNDP) issued a statement saluting Turner’s "extremely generous and socially conscious decision." They claimed the funds would arrive at a "crucial moment" for the UN as it grapples with "dwindling resources to meet a growing array of vital needs." The implication was that Turner’s private funds might fill the gap created by a failure or reluctance of UN member governments to fund those agencies.
The alleged funding gap may also explain the U.S. State Department’s close connection to UN Foundation efforts. Because Timothy Wirth leads the foundation, some communication with the Clinton administration is to be expected. But could the State Department be influencing the UN Foundation to provide private funds for programs and policies that are opposed by influential members of Congress whom the Administration does not want to confront?
A recent encounter suggests the relationship is worthy of investigation. At a January 15 press conference on population matters in Washington, D.C., Wirth associate Ellen Marshall appeared with Frank E. Loy, Wirth’s successor as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs. Marshall, who is responsible for women’s issues at the UN Foundation, left the Clinton State Department with Wirth.
At the press conference, Marshall described the UN Foundation’s $1.1 million grant for an NGO and Youth forum held the previous month in The Hague, Netherlands to review the platform of the controversial 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo. The grant was meant to enable the NGOs to review the ICPD platform and work on strategies to implement the Cairo platform. It was funneled through UNFPA.
Marshall said she helped draft a controversial presidential decision directive (PDD) on population issues when she was a State Department official. The June 1, 1994 PDD proposed to reduce "the rate of population growth as rapidly as possible to levels consistent with sustainable development" through close cooperation with the UN. The document said the U.S. would continue to support "population assistance programs" primarily through the Agency for International Development, and would provide "adequate resources" to UNFPA, WHO and other UN agencies.
But Marshall said the State Depart-ment’s draft PDD on population issues was abandoned in favor of adopting the official "program of action" of the Cairo conference as official U.S. policy. This platform stopped just short of endorsing abortion as a method of family planning because of the opposition of the Vatican and some Third World countries.
According to Marshall, "There was a great deal of work done trying to reassess what the policy should be. That also happened to coincide with the International Conference on Population and Development. So rather than have a U.S. policy on international [population issues], the United States participated in this international discussion and looked to the ICPD program of action as its official position. So while there is no PDD, there is the United States endorsing the ICPD program of action as its policy statement.... It was a very conscious decision."
It is clear that when the UN Foundation supported the Netherlands follow-up conference, Marshall as a private foundation official was furthering a population policy she developed and the State Department endorsed through the UN conference. But the State Department’s apparent deference to a private grantmaker for help with funding its agenda — which includes activities opposed by influential members of Congress — raises important questions about the relationship of the UN Foundation and the Clinton administration.
Greening the Earth
The UN Foundation is also using its grants to assist UN efforts to secure compliance with the global warming treaty, also known as the Kyoto Protocol.
Last year, the foundation granted $1 million to the UN Industrial Development Organization and more than $1.2 million to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. The grants support creation of an emissions-trading system, a concept backed by the White House as part of the global warming treaty. The system would allow U.S. firms to exceed UN treaty limits on fossil fuel emissions by purchasing pollution credits from other countries or transferring technology to the Third World. One element of the project — "assistance to governments in defining adequate domestic regulatory and supervisory frameworks" — suggests the extent to which UN Foundation money will subsidize government regulatory agencies.
The UN Foundation has committed another $900,000 for "Post-Kyoto Climate Change Policies" in China. The grant will support the development of public policies to reduce "greenhouse" gas emissions. The funds will be channeled through the World Resources Institute (WRI) and UNDP, which is headed by Clinton appointee and WRI founder James Gustave Speth. Speth is reportedly leaving his UNDP post in June to help Vice President Gore run for president.
There is a serious political problem with the UN Foundation’s grants: they support the implementation of a treaty that has not been ratified by — or even submitted to — the U.S. Senate. Most observers say that the pact, if submitted, would fail by a wide margin because it could cripple our industrial economy, while major fossil fuel emitters like China flatly refuse to sign or abide by it.
Other UN Foundation grants for environmental projects are less controversial. A $650,000 grant to the UN Environment Program (UNEP) supports efforts to reduce the impact of El Nino-related emergencies, and a $2.4 million grant helps African cities to develop better water management systems. But what can be expected from a $350,000 grant to let young people assess the state of the global environment?
Controversial Grants
Turner has never been afraid to leap into controversy, and the UN Foundation has followed his lead. While many of the 1998 foundation grants support worthy projects — like eradicating Guinea Worm disease in Africa or fighting slave and drug trafficking — some grants deserve closer inspection.
For example, a 1998 grant made jointly to WHO and UNICEF supports their efforts to promote "long-term strategies" to ensure "tobacco-free children and youth." No doubt the U.S. tobacco control movement is going global. Once again, children are the excuse for new taxes and regulation on the tobacco industry. The UN Foundation claims "this project is the single largest grant ever made to prevent and discourage international tobacco use among children and adolescents."
On the other hand, another UN Foundation grant is promising despite some controversy. The grant provides more than $3 million over two years to UNICEF for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS in Africa and Asia. The disease is a major problem in Third World countries, and the most tragic victims are the young. Babies whose mothers are HIV-positive have about a 28 percent chance of contracting the virus through breast milk.
Since last June, UNICEF has launched pilot projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America which support HIV-positive women who choose not to breast-feed. With UN Foundation funding, UNICEF counsels mothers about the risk of HIV transmission through breast-feeding and provides milk substitutes "for up to six months if necessary."
Thus UNICEF and the UN Foundation seem to be moving in a direction encouraged by groups like the Foundation for Democracy in Africa, which accuses UNICEF of helping to spread AIDS under its former policy of promoting breast-feeding exclusively. In this case, the UN Foundation may be having a positive impact on the policies of a UN agency.
Conclusion
Ted Turner’s dedication to the UN is well-known. He flies the UN flag over CNN Center in Atlanta and bans the use of the word "foreign" on CNN broadcasts.
But while Turner’s money could prove successful in revitalizing controversial UN agencies, it could also lead to increasing private involvement in the affairs of the world organization. Indeed, some have suggested using private funds to alleviate all the UN’s financial problems, including the so-called U.S. "debt."
For political reasons, Secretary-General Annan has ruled that out, saying that UN Foundation grants will not offset America’s $1.5 billion debt because the world body cannot accept contributions from private citizens for that purpose. But if this is true, how can private citizens make contributions to the UN for any purpose at all?
Private funding for the UN makes congressional attempts to de-fund the UN or its agencies almost irrelevant. This might cheer supporters of privatization or implacable opponents of the UN. But is also undercuts those who hope U.S. government financial pressure might force much-needed UN reforms. A few billionaires could further the transformation of the UN from a collection of member-states to the pawn of tax-exempt special interests. That, of course, is a serious threat to American interests and perhaps to the UN itself.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Elite advocate 85%+ depopulation
http://www.bilderberg.org/2006.htm#8519Jun06 - Jocelan Caldwell - Bilderberg.org exclusiveBilderberg lords want rid of 85% of worlds populationWhat would you think if all of the North-American sports team owners, for instance, met secretly every year where no media were allowed in or to interview any of the participants, where there were armed guards at all the doors and when they exited that meeting, the individuals hid their faces so as not to get photographed and refused to talk to reporters? What would the reaction be? Sports fans - and most everyone else - would be furious! We would wonder what kind of deals were they hatching, what were they plotting and planning that they didn't want the rest of us to know?Sounds pretty weird, eh? But did you know that recently at a 5-star hotel in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, more than 100 of the world's most wealthy and powerful individuals - called the Bilderbergers or the Illuminati or Synarchists - (and confirmed as including Hilary Clinton, George H.W. Bush, David Rockefeller, Gov. George Pataki of New York, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank, Henry Kissinger and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, whose family owns Royal Dutch Shell Oil) got together under just such circumstances to discuss the future of not baseball but the world as the rich and powerful want it to look like. At the end of their meeting they covered their faces, ashamed, as they sneaked out to their limousines to the airport.On Wednesday, June 14th on the nightly "Coast to Coast" radio program from Los Angeles, host George Noory interviewed three men who have been long aware of the Bilderbergers but up until the past few years have been laughed at and dismissed as conspiracy theorists and worse - Jim Mars of Texas, author of "Rule by Secrecy"; Daniel Esheron, author of "The True History of the Bilderberger Club" and Alex Jones author of "Martial Law 911".They discussed the One World Order the Bilderbergers have been planning for all the rest of us, to include the Canamex Highway which would run straight from Mexico, through the U.S.A. up to Canada with no border inspections; transponders for taxation purposes to be placed in all new automobiles (which has already come up for discussion in the Texas legislature); the U.S.'s future of undefended borders which started only recently when the government backed down on a plan to spend $60 million to update all U.S. ports; a future where the Bilderbergers will appoint all world leaders and return to feudalism and a plan to reduce the world population by 80-90 percent, to name just a few.How, you may ask, can a group of only about 300 individuals get control over the rest of us? One way is by placing microchips in individuals (recently done by the President of a large American bank to "allow him access to secret vaults and store rooms in his bank"), the International Monetary Fund's Wolfowitz who will control the World Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, all European banks, the Secretary General of NATO and therefore NATO itself; it includes the Tri-Lateral Commission's plan, already in process, of NAFTA, the Euro Group and to include a group of Asian countries.Their plans, over the years, have already been witnessed - World War II, the Korean War, starvation of nations, Viet Nam, and the fact that virtually nothing is being done for the Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans. More sources:World Depopulation is top NSA agenda: Club of Romehttp://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/depopulation.htm(Signed-off by Henry Kissenger in 1975)Confronting The 21st Century's Hidden Crisis: Reducing Human Numbers by 80%http://www.npg.org/forum_series/confronting.htmTop Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Populationhttp://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april...massculling.htm Professor's "Kill 90% of Population" Comments Echo UN, Elite NGO policieshttp://prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006...epopulation.htm
Mercury in Flu Vaccinations five times the CDC's safe level reccomendation
Mercury in Flu Vaccinations five times the CDC's safe level reccomendation
Interview of Dr Eva Snead by Gary Null
GARY NULL: One of the most outspoken, intelligent and absolutely determined physicians on public health issues that’s Dr Edith Snead. Nice to have you with us today.
DR EVA SNEAD: Nice to be with you. I appreciated all that flattery.
Well you deserve it. That’s because I wouldn’t give it if it’s not deserved. Let’s talk quickly, we have about eight minutes to talk about this latest phenomenon of everybody running out to get their flu shot and they can do that, I‘m not suggesting that they should not do that, that’s their choice but I’d like a different perspective so at least they have something to counterbalance their existing information. Why don’t you share what you consider the pros and cons of the flu vaccine?
Well we have talked about vaccines and that they are all totally unsafe. Now talking about the flu vaccine itself it’s prepared on chicken embryo, which mean unborn chicken which means that people who are allergic to these products like egg and chicken can become seriously ill and on the other hand the injection of these proteins into other humans will render them in a large percentage allergic to chicken and egg which means that people who were not allergic before will now become allergic.
The other problem is that all viral vaccines contain not only the particular virus but they also contain traces of leukaemia virus, cancer producing viruses etc. These are not completely removable, they exist in the chicken from which these eggs are taken and although they claim that they are like 98% purified, 2% of several billion viruses is still an awful lot of cancer and leukaemia dangers.
Another fact is that to separate cells we also may have to use a pork product which is made from raw pork stomach. This is an enzyme that separates the cells called pork trypsin and a lot of people who would not ingest or take pork products for religious reasons are seduced without knowing it into violating their convictions so there you have in a nutshell the beginning of why it is not very wise to take influenza vaccines.
OK. Why don’t you give us some of what you have found in the literature, some of the problems with the flu vaccine and also they’re claiming all this success. I question whether they can prove the success because you cannot disprove a negative.
That’s correct. Imagine, Gary, the gullibility of a public that not only believes that these companies give them a safe and effective product but that they give them the credence of a god that two years in advance when they start making these serums they know which particular kind of influenza is going to be causing the epidemic two years later. I mean you know these people have the utter gall to tell people that they can do it because they can’t. This is based on computer predictions and so on which are totally inaccurate. Now, you may remember the horrible epidemic of neurologic illness that we had in ’76 and although the present day vaccines don’t have that high an incidence even the package insert tells me that there’s a higher incidence of Guillaine Barre which is a sort of euphemism for a variety of polio in all people under fifty that take the influenza vaccine. So imagine the risk you are running aside from the viruses, the cancer, the leukaemia. Two or three years ago there was a rash of positive HIV and hepatitis patients in Baltimore among people who would otherwise not be expected to have a positive test. When studied all of these people had received the influenza vaccine four to six weeks prior and this was rapidly covered up by the press as you were saying in your beautiful new article that told that the press in uninquisitive today.
Do you have an example of some of the guaranteed safety vaccines that we have been given over the years only later to find out that the guarantees were unsupported by any credible science and actually were deleterious?
There is no science, credible or otherwise, this is all guess work. I mean you can’t test for something that hasn’t happened and you can’t test compared to what? I mean you don’t know that there would have been an epidemic and certainly if you put a certain variety of viruses in the public then you will find they will say "Oh we were right. Virus A or B, Australian or South American or whatever you may call it will be endemic this year". Well you know you become a self-fulfilling prophesy because you created the particular problem and not only that but the other thing that is very, very important that nobody has brought up to my knowledge is about forty years ago a study was done in England on problems with the nervous system in new born and unborn foetuses that were aborted and they discovered that the majority of children who had birth defects in the nervous system particularly and encephalus had been exposed to the flu virus. Flu virus, of course, being now in all the vaccines that people are vaccinated. In the south of Texas we are having a tremendous rash of these particular neurologic problems. Children born without a brain or part of a brain and everybody is telling the public "Oh we have not a clue of what could cause this". Well, we do have a clue, we’re just lying to the public.
Why do you think there’s such an interest in getting people to get the flu vaccine. I realise that this is subjective and giveus subjective answer.
Well the manufacturer makes money. I mean that a very simple thing. They’re seen as a wonderful product because they get the endorsement of government and health affiliations. He produces serum that costs you basically not that much to produce. You seduce the public into needing it and you sell millions and millions of doses so there’s an awful lot of money to be made. Now from the point of view of public health, again there’s money and grants to be made. I mean there are many people employed in persuading the public this problem exists and persuading them that they need it. And then of course, as you well know, we may suspect that there are other reasons that could be political or genocidal because the product is administered to large amounts of older people and as you well know in nursing homes where they receive flu vaccines there are many, many cases of flu shortly after the vaccination effort which indicates a total association and from a very crude point of view the perpetuation of life in older people particularly in nursing homes is not desirable to those that handle the funds. So of course we cannot prove this but it certainly presents a seductive hypothesis.
Again, that’s a little too seductive for my taste. I haven’t been able to make any such association but I would suggest that for them to tell us that the flu vaccines are both necessary ... I have not seen that they have either part of that scenario on hand. Dr Eva Snead thank you very much. Nice to always have you with us.
Interview of Dr Eva Snead by Gary Null
GARY NULL: One of the most outspoken, intelligent and absolutely determined physicians on public health issues that’s Dr Edith Snead. Nice to have you with us today.
DR EVA SNEAD: Nice to be with you. I appreciated all that flattery.
Well you deserve it. That’s because I wouldn’t give it if it’s not deserved. Let’s talk quickly, we have about eight minutes to talk about this latest phenomenon of everybody running out to get their flu shot and they can do that, I‘m not suggesting that they should not do that, that’s their choice but I’d like a different perspective so at least they have something to counterbalance their existing information. Why don’t you share what you consider the pros and cons of the flu vaccine?
Well we have talked about vaccines and that they are all totally unsafe. Now talking about the flu vaccine itself it’s prepared on chicken embryo, which mean unborn chicken which means that people who are allergic to these products like egg and chicken can become seriously ill and on the other hand the injection of these proteins into other humans will render them in a large percentage allergic to chicken and egg which means that people who were not allergic before will now become allergic.
The other problem is that all viral vaccines contain not only the particular virus but they also contain traces of leukaemia virus, cancer producing viruses etc. These are not completely removable, they exist in the chicken from which these eggs are taken and although they claim that they are like 98% purified, 2% of several billion viruses is still an awful lot of cancer and leukaemia dangers.
Another fact is that to separate cells we also may have to use a pork product which is made from raw pork stomach. This is an enzyme that separates the cells called pork trypsin and a lot of people who would not ingest or take pork products for religious reasons are seduced without knowing it into violating their convictions so there you have in a nutshell the beginning of why it is not very wise to take influenza vaccines.
OK. Why don’t you give us some of what you have found in the literature, some of the problems with the flu vaccine and also they’re claiming all this success. I question whether they can prove the success because you cannot disprove a negative.
That’s correct. Imagine, Gary, the gullibility of a public that not only believes that these companies give them a safe and effective product but that they give them the credence of a god that two years in advance when they start making these serums they know which particular kind of influenza is going to be causing the epidemic two years later. I mean you know these people have the utter gall to tell people that they can do it because they can’t. This is based on computer predictions and so on which are totally inaccurate. Now, you may remember the horrible epidemic of neurologic illness that we had in ’76 and although the present day vaccines don’t have that high an incidence even the package insert tells me that there’s a higher incidence of Guillaine Barre which is a sort of euphemism for a variety of polio in all people under fifty that take the influenza vaccine. So imagine the risk you are running aside from the viruses, the cancer, the leukaemia. Two or three years ago there was a rash of positive HIV and hepatitis patients in Baltimore among people who would otherwise not be expected to have a positive test. When studied all of these people had received the influenza vaccine four to six weeks prior and this was rapidly covered up by the press as you were saying in your beautiful new article that told that the press in uninquisitive today.
Do you have an example of some of the guaranteed safety vaccines that we have been given over the years only later to find out that the guarantees were unsupported by any credible science and actually were deleterious?
There is no science, credible or otherwise, this is all guess work. I mean you can’t test for something that hasn’t happened and you can’t test compared to what? I mean you don’t know that there would have been an epidemic and certainly if you put a certain variety of viruses in the public then you will find they will say "Oh we were right. Virus A or B, Australian or South American or whatever you may call it will be endemic this year". Well you know you become a self-fulfilling prophesy because you created the particular problem and not only that but the other thing that is very, very important that nobody has brought up to my knowledge is about forty years ago a study was done in England on problems with the nervous system in new born and unborn foetuses that were aborted and they discovered that the majority of children who had birth defects in the nervous system particularly and encephalus had been exposed to the flu virus. Flu virus, of course, being now in all the vaccines that people are vaccinated. In the south of Texas we are having a tremendous rash of these particular neurologic problems. Children born without a brain or part of a brain and everybody is telling the public "Oh we have not a clue of what could cause this". Well, we do have a clue, we’re just lying to the public.
Why do you think there’s such an interest in getting people to get the flu vaccine. I realise that this is subjective and giveus subjective answer.
Well the manufacturer makes money. I mean that a very simple thing. They’re seen as a wonderful product because they get the endorsement of government and health affiliations. He produces serum that costs you basically not that much to produce. You seduce the public into needing it and you sell millions and millions of doses so there’s an awful lot of money to be made. Now from the point of view of public health, again there’s money and grants to be made. I mean there are many people employed in persuading the public this problem exists and persuading them that they need it. And then of course, as you well know, we may suspect that there are other reasons that could be political or genocidal because the product is administered to large amounts of older people and as you well know in nursing homes where they receive flu vaccines there are many, many cases of flu shortly after the vaccination effort which indicates a total association and from a very crude point of view the perpetuation of life in older people particularly in nursing homes is not desirable to those that handle the funds. So of course we cannot prove this but it certainly presents a seductive hypothesis.
Again, that’s a little too seductive for my taste. I haven’t been able to make any such association but I would suggest that for them to tell us that the flu vaccines are both necessary ... I have not seen that they have either part of that scenario on hand. Dr Eva Snead thank you very much. Nice to always have you with us.
mercury vaccines and the global autism epidemic
Mercury on the Mind
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
Although they afflict widely different age groups, autism and Alzheimer’s disease share a common cause: mercury. Dr. Boyd Haley, professor and chair of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Bernard Rimland, founder of the Autism Research Institute, presented evidence at this year’s Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting that connects mercury with these diseases.
This heavy metal is highly poisonous. A Dartmouth professor studying the chemical characteristics of an organic form of mercury – dimethyl mercury – spilled two drops of it on her gloved hand. The first sign of mercury poisoning occurred four months later when her speech began to be slurred. This was followed by difficulty walking and loss of vision. She then fell into a coma and died. Another person, attempting to smelt the silver in dental amalgams he obtained (they are 35 percent silver, 50 percent mercury, and 15 percent tin, zinc, and other metals), heated them in a frying pan. The mercury vapor thus generated killed him quickly. The two other family members in the house at the time also died.
Mercury is one proton (neutron and electron) heavier than gold – the atomic number of gold is 79; mercury, 80. It is distributed throughout the earth’s crust. Unlike other metals, mercury, in its elemental state, is liquid (molten) at room temperature. And it releases a steady stream of gaseous mercury atoms that linger in the atmosphere for months (eventually falling back to earth and its oceans in an inorganic form in rain drops). Even when in a solid state, combined with other metals as an alloy, mercury atoms continually escape into the atmosphere. Once added to latex paint, put in teething powder, used in making hats, as a fungicide on seeds, as an antiseptic (Merthiolate), and as a treatment for syphilis (the cure was worse than the disease), human exposure to mercury today comes principally from three sources: dental amalgams, vaccines, and fish.
Elemental mercury when released by a dental amalgam is inhaled and (80 percent of it) absorbed by the lungs and retained in the body. Vaccine makers add thimerosal (which is half ethyl mercury) to vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. This injected organic form of mercury is readily taken up by brain and heart muscle cells. Fish harbor another organic form of mercury – methyl mercury, which is obtained from plankton that synthesize it from inorganic mercury extracted from the sea.
Currently the two most important sources of mercury exposure for Americans are dental amalgams and vaccinations. The Federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for reasons not explained, have chosen to ignore this fact. These agencies and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) focus exclusively on mercury in seafood, to the extent that the NIH will not fund studies that address mercury in amalgams and vaccines.
In lockstep with the government, the American Dental Association (ADA) claims that amalgams are safe, and the mercury in them poses no problem. The (government-funded) Institute of Medicine (IOM) and various specialty societies, notably the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American Medical Association (AMA), say the same thing about mercury in vaccines. There is growing evidence, however, that mercury in vaccines and amalgams cause both autism and Alzheimer’s disease. The CDC and the FDA and the medical establishment, led by its specialty societies, discount or ignore this evidence – evidence that includes privately funded epidemiological studies; research on how mercury damages brain cells grown in culture; animal studies in rodents, sheep, and primates; and clinical studies in children and adults.
Autism was discovered in 1943, in American children, twelve years after ethyl mercury (thimerosal) was added to the pertussis vaccine. (The disease was not seen in Europe until the 1950s, after thimerosal was added to vaccines used there.) In a typical case, shortly before his 2nd birthday a normally developing, healthy boy stops communicating with others and withdraws into himself. He avoids eye contact and becomes strange and aloof. His vision becomes blurred; and he develops various motor disturbances, such as involuntary jerking of the arms and legs and walking on his toes. In addition to these manifestations, Dr. Sallie Bernard and her colleagues, in a study titled, "Autism: A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning," describe the speech difficulties, unusual behavior (such as unprovoked crying spells and head banging), various degrees of cognitive impairment, gastrointestinal difficulties, and immune difficulties that these autistic children can have. Mercury is most likely a causative factor in other developmental disorders as well, such as delayed speech and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Investigators have shown that there is a direct relationship between increasing doses of mercury in vaccines and autism. In the 1950s, with an immunization schedule limited to four vaccines (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and smallpox), 1 in 10,000 children developed this disease. As vaccines for other diseases were added, health care providers began injecting increasingly larger doses of mercury into children. Those born in 1981 were given 135 micrograms of mercury (on average), and one case of autism occurred in every 2,600 children born that year. With the addition of hepatitis B vaccine (injected on the day of birth) and one for Haemophilus influenzae Type b, providers injected 246 micrograms of mercury into children born in 1996. Autism occurred in one out of every 350 of these children. Today, providers follow an immunization schedule, prepared by the CDC and approved by the AAP and AAFP, that includes 13 vaccines given, with variable numbers of booster shots, 33 times before a child reaches the age of 2 (when the development of the brain is completed). Autism now afflicts 1 in 100 boys and 1 in 400 girls, and physicians diagnose 100,000 new cases of this disease every year in the U.S (using diagnostic criteria, in the DSM-IV, that is more restrictive than the previous DSM-IIIR). Over the last 30 years more than one million children have come down with this disease, and currently one in every 68 families in America has an autistic child.
Mainstream medical journals, like Pediatrics and The New England Journal of Medicine, only publish studies that claim thimerosal is safe. And it turns out that these articles are written in large part by researchers in the pay of vaccine makers, as the Coalition for Safe Minds (Sensible Action For Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders), a private nonprofit organization, has shown. Editors of these journals will not publish studies that show a link between thimerosal and autism like "Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States" by Mark and David Geier, which documents a strong association between the amounts of mercury injected in vaccines and autism. Such articles can only find acceptance in alternative (i.e., "politically incorrect") journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, where this one was published.
The amount of damage a given dose of mercury can do to the brain (and also the heart) depends on one’s age, sex, and genetically determined ability to excrete mercury. Young children with still developing brains are more susceptible, and males are more vulnerable to a given dose of mercury because testosterone enhances its neurotoxicity. Most important, however, is one’s genetically programmed ability to rid the body of mercury. The brain has a house-cleaning protein that removes dangerous waste products, which comes in three varieties: APO-E2, APO-E3, and APO-E4. The APO-E2 protein can carry 2 atoms of mercury out of the brain; APO-3, one; and AOP-E4, none. The genes we acquire from each parent determine which two we have. People with two APO-E4 proteins (and thus no APO-E2 or -E3) have an 80 percent chance of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease. And according to one study, autistic children have a huge preponderance of APO-E4 protein in their brains.
Alzheimer’s disease was discovered in 1906, again in America, where dentists used mercury-laden amalgams to fill cavities (dentists in Europe largely avoided them). Today, more than 4 million Americans now have Alzheimer’s disease. It afflicts half of people over the age of 85 and 20 percent aged 75 to 84.
The first symptoms of this disease are difficulty concentrating and variable degrees of memory loss, leading ultimately to devastating mental deterioration. The brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease shrink by 25 percent and have distinct pathologic hallmarks (neurofibillary tangles, amyloid plaques, and phosphorylation of tau protein). Brain cells grown in the laboratory develop the same three pathologic findings when exposed to nanomolar (3.6 × 10-10 molar) doses of mercury, an amount approximating that found in the brains of people who have a lot of amalgam fillings.
Dental amalgams are the main source of mercury in an adult’s brain. An average-sized amalgam filling contains 750,000 micrograms of mercury and releases around 10 micrograms a day. Researchers put radiolabelled mercury amalgams in the teeth of sheep and determined where escaped mercury went with a scanner. They showed that mercury atoms exhaled through the nose travel up filaments of the olfactory nerve to the hippocampus, which controls memory, and to other critical areas in the brain. In another study, rats given the same concentration of mercury that people inhale from their amalgams develop the pathologic markers of Alzheimer’s disease. People with Alzheimer’s disease have mercury levels in their brains that are 2 to 3 times higher than that seen in normal people.
The mercury in flu vaccines also plays a role in this disease. One investigator has found that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3 to 5 years had a ten-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who had zero, 1, or 2 shots.
Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity – mercury’s enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum.
Why do officials at the CDC, FDA, and leaders of the medical and dental establishment discount or ignore all these important facts? Some of them being in the pay of vaccine makers is one reason. The specter of litigation for having sanctioned thimerosal and amalgams and, in the case of the FDA, not doing appropriate safety studies on them is another. But it is more complicated than that. The hypothesis that mercury causes autism and Alzheimer’s disease is a new truth. And as Schopenhauer points out (see my article on him), each new truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. And third, it is accepted as self-evident. The mercury truth is now in the second stage.
In the 1790s Edward Jenner observed that milk maids did not have pock marks on their faces, like people did who had contracted and survived smallpox. Milking cows with cowpox rendered them immune to smallpox. He took fluid from the pustules of infected cows, injected it into children, and found that it protected them, when exposed, from contracting smallpox. The medical establishment of the day dismissed the idea of vaccinating people with cow pus as nonsense; and Sir Joseph Banks, president of the British Royal Society (the IOM of the day), told Jenner that he would ruin his reputation if he tried to publish these findings, which were so much at variance with established knowledge. When other doctors and informed individuals like Thomas Jefferson recognized that "vaccination" did indeed work, its value was, in time, accepted as self-evident. Jenner’s vaccine saved millions of lives and eradicated a disfiguring disease that has a 30 percent mortality rate. (But laboratories in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. preserved the virus that causes smallpox, and we now know that Soviet microbiologists grew vast quantities of it in chicken eggs for use as a biological weapon of mass destruction.)
Today the medical establishment, led by the AAP, AAFP, AMA, CDC, and IOM, has gone to the other extreme. The accepted wisdom now is that vaccines are a panacea. Health care providers start injecting them in infants on the day of birth, and government officials seek to have them made mandatory for all Americans. But some little-discussed facts belie their value. Deaths from diphtheria, for example, declined 90 percent from 1900 to 1930, due to better sanitation and nutrition, before there was a vaccine for this disease. Likewise, the death rate for measles declined 95 percent (13.3 to 0.03 deaths per 100,000 population) between 1915 and 1958, before the vaccine for measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. Viewed from a risk/benefit perspective, providers and government officials downplay the deleterious effects that vaccines can have on one’s health and inflate their benefits. The top medical textbook on the subject is Vaccines, edited by Drs. Plotkin and Orenstein. In the 1999 3rd Edition that I reviewed (a slightly longer 4th Edition was published last year), its authors confine their discussion of mercury in vaccines to two short paragraphs in this 1,230-page book. They do not address concerns that have been raised about its neurotoxicity.
Vaccine manufacturers have started removing thimerosal from vaccines. And for the first time since the state began keeping records on this disease, California has had a decrease, of 6 percent, in the annual number of children over the age of 3 who have been diagnosed with autism. This occurred in children born in 2000, when the phase-out of thimerosal in vaccines began. Iowa has passed a law banning thimerosal in that state, and California has done the same thing for pregnant women and children under 3 (the bill awaits the governor’s signature). But pharmaceutical companies still add thimerosal in their Flu vaccines; and pediatricians are vaccinating children with their remaining supply of thimerosal-containing vaccines, which the FDA has chosen not to recall.
Taking mercury out of vaccines would substantially reduce the incidence of autism, but this alone will not eliminate the disease. Giving too many vaccines over too short a time to infants whose nervous system is not yet fully developed can also trigger autism and its spectrum of disorders. As Dr. Blaylock has shown (see Recommended Reading below), multiple vaccines given close together over-stimulate the brain’s immune system and, via the mechanism of "bystander injury," destroy brain cells.
Avoiding flu shots that contain thimerosal, and having dentists stop implanting mercury amalgams in people’s mouths would lower the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. If you have amalgam fillings, particularly if there is a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, you might consider having them removed. Be sure to have a dentist do it who follows the protocol established by The International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology for safely removing them.
For the third source of mercury, follow the CDC’s advice and don’t eat mercury-contaminated fish, especially if you are pregnant because mercury in your bloodstream crosses the placenta and is concentrated in the fetus’ brain.
Recommended Reading – in addition to the online links provided above
An excellent review of thimerosal and autism, titled "Mercury in Medicine – Taking Unnecessary Risks," is to be found, of all places, in the Congressional Record. Prepared by its Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, this report was presented to the Committee on Government Reform, chaired by Congressman Dan Burton (who has an autistic grandson). Congressional Record, May 21, 2003, E1011–E1030.
SafeMinds president, Lyn Redwood, presented testimony at a Congressional hearing held on September 8, 2004 that exposes malfeasance by the CDC and FDA related to thimerosal. It is titled "Truth Revealed: New Scientific Discoveries Regarding Mercury in Medicine and Autism" and is posted on their website, safeminds.org. See also this organization’s 84-page Report to Congress titled, "A Brief Analysis of Recent Efforts in Medical Mercury Induced Neurological and Autism Spectrum Disorders" (September 8, 2004).
"The Three Modern Faces of Mercury" – in fish, vaccines, and dental amalgams – by Thomas Clarkson in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 110 Supplement 1 February 2002 pages 11–23. This study provides an current-day perspective on mercury exposure, post Calomel, Merthiolate, and Mad Hatters.
If your dentist parrots the American Dental Association stance on this subject and says that "silver" – i.e., mercury – amalgams are perfectly safe, insist that he or she read Dr. Boyd Haley’s response to the president of the ADA on his defense of dental amalgams. It is posted on this website. I sent it to my dentist who I had been going to for a number of years. When he chose to ignore it, I changed dentists – to a mercury-free one and had him remove all my amalgam fillings.
"Mercury: the Silent Killer," Chapter 3 in Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. As a board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Blaylock, like me, is a member of the medical establishment. He now, however, studies and writes about wellness and complementary/alternative medicine on a full-time basis.
Are Vaccines Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller (2002). This 78-page (paperback) book is well worth reading, especially if you have children or if you are being pressured to get a flu shot.
For a comprehensive review, with 167 scientific references, on how vaccines damage infants’ and soldiers’ brains (Gulf War Syndrome) when given too close together, see Dr. Blaylock’s "Interaction of Cytokines, Excitotoxins, Reactive Nitrogen and Oxygen Species in Autism Spectrum Disorders" in the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association (JANA 2003;6[4]:21–35). See also his study, "Chronic Microglial Activation and Excitotoxicity Secondary to Excessive Immune Stimulation: Possible Factors in GulfWar Syndrome and Autism" in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JAPS 2004;9[2]:46–52). Dr. Blaylock has written a simplified version of these studies for the general public titled "Vaccines: the Hidden Dangers," in his Blaylock Wellness Report (Vol. 1, No. 1), which is published monthly and can be purchased online.
September 29, 2004
Donald Miller (send him mail) is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com, including bioterrorism. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com.
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
Although they afflict widely different age groups, autism and Alzheimer’s disease share a common cause: mercury. Dr. Boyd Haley, professor and chair of the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky, and Dr. Bernard Rimland, founder of the Autism Research Institute, presented evidence at this year’s Doctors for Disaster Preparedness meeting that connects mercury with these diseases.
This heavy metal is highly poisonous. A Dartmouth professor studying the chemical characteristics of an organic form of mercury – dimethyl mercury – spilled two drops of it on her gloved hand. The first sign of mercury poisoning occurred four months later when her speech began to be slurred. This was followed by difficulty walking and loss of vision. She then fell into a coma and died. Another person, attempting to smelt the silver in dental amalgams he obtained (they are 35 percent silver, 50 percent mercury, and 15 percent tin, zinc, and other metals), heated them in a frying pan. The mercury vapor thus generated killed him quickly. The two other family members in the house at the time also died.
Mercury is one proton (neutron and electron) heavier than gold – the atomic number of gold is 79; mercury, 80. It is distributed throughout the earth’s crust. Unlike other metals, mercury, in its elemental state, is liquid (molten) at room temperature. And it releases a steady stream of gaseous mercury atoms that linger in the atmosphere for months (eventually falling back to earth and its oceans in an inorganic form in rain drops). Even when in a solid state, combined with other metals as an alloy, mercury atoms continually escape into the atmosphere. Once added to latex paint, put in teething powder, used in making hats, as a fungicide on seeds, as an antiseptic (Merthiolate), and as a treatment for syphilis (the cure was worse than the disease), human exposure to mercury today comes principally from three sources: dental amalgams, vaccines, and fish.
Elemental mercury when released by a dental amalgam is inhaled and (80 percent of it) absorbed by the lungs and retained in the body. Vaccine makers add thimerosal (which is half ethyl mercury) to vaccines to prevent bacterial contamination. This injected organic form of mercury is readily taken up by brain and heart muscle cells. Fish harbor another organic form of mercury – methyl mercury, which is obtained from plankton that synthesize it from inorganic mercury extracted from the sea.
Currently the two most important sources of mercury exposure for Americans are dental amalgams and vaccinations. The Federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for reasons not explained, have chosen to ignore this fact. These agencies and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) focus exclusively on mercury in seafood, to the extent that the NIH will not fund studies that address mercury in amalgams and vaccines.
In lockstep with the government, the American Dental Association (ADA) claims that amalgams are safe, and the mercury in them poses no problem. The (government-funded) Institute of Medicine (IOM) and various specialty societies, notably the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American Medical Association (AMA), say the same thing about mercury in vaccines. There is growing evidence, however, that mercury in vaccines and amalgams cause both autism and Alzheimer’s disease. The CDC and the FDA and the medical establishment, led by its specialty societies, discount or ignore this evidence – evidence that includes privately funded epidemiological studies; research on how mercury damages brain cells grown in culture; animal studies in rodents, sheep, and primates; and clinical studies in children and adults.
Autism was discovered in 1943, in American children, twelve years after ethyl mercury (thimerosal) was added to the pertussis vaccine. (The disease was not seen in Europe until the 1950s, after thimerosal was added to vaccines used there.) In a typical case, shortly before his 2nd birthday a normally developing, healthy boy stops communicating with others and withdraws into himself. He avoids eye contact and becomes strange and aloof. His vision becomes blurred; and he develops various motor disturbances, such as involuntary jerking of the arms and legs and walking on his toes. In addition to these manifestations, Dr. Sallie Bernard and her colleagues, in a study titled, "Autism: A Unique Type of Mercury Poisoning," describe the speech difficulties, unusual behavior (such as unprovoked crying spells and head banging), various degrees of cognitive impairment, gastrointestinal difficulties, and immune difficulties that these autistic children can have. Mercury is most likely a causative factor in other developmental disorders as well, such as delayed speech and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Investigators have shown that there is a direct relationship between increasing doses of mercury in vaccines and autism. In the 1950s, with an immunization schedule limited to four vaccines (against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and smallpox), 1 in 10,000 children developed this disease. As vaccines for other diseases were added, health care providers began injecting increasingly larger doses of mercury into children. Those born in 1981 were given 135 micrograms of mercury (on average), and one case of autism occurred in every 2,600 children born that year. With the addition of hepatitis B vaccine (injected on the day of birth) and one for Haemophilus influenzae Type b, providers injected 246 micrograms of mercury into children born in 1996. Autism occurred in one out of every 350 of these children. Today, providers follow an immunization schedule, prepared by the CDC and approved by the AAP and AAFP, that includes 13 vaccines given, with variable numbers of booster shots, 33 times before a child reaches the age of 2 (when the development of the brain is completed). Autism now afflicts 1 in 100 boys and 1 in 400 girls, and physicians diagnose 100,000 new cases of this disease every year in the U.S (using diagnostic criteria, in the DSM-IV, that is more restrictive than the previous DSM-IIIR). Over the last 30 years more than one million children have come down with this disease, and currently one in every 68 families in America has an autistic child.
Mainstream medical journals, like Pediatrics and The New England Journal of Medicine, only publish studies that claim thimerosal is safe. And it turns out that these articles are written in large part by researchers in the pay of vaccine makers, as the Coalition for Safe Minds (Sensible Action For Ending Mercury-Induced Neurological Disorders), a private nonprofit organization, has shown. Editors of these journals will not publish studies that show a link between thimerosal and autism like "Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States" by Mark and David Geier, which documents a strong association between the amounts of mercury injected in vaccines and autism. Such articles can only find acceptance in alternative (i.e., "politically incorrect") journals like the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, where this one was published.
The amount of damage a given dose of mercury can do to the brain (and also the heart) depends on one’s age, sex, and genetically determined ability to excrete mercury. Young children with still developing brains are more susceptible, and males are more vulnerable to a given dose of mercury because testosterone enhances its neurotoxicity. Most important, however, is one’s genetically programmed ability to rid the body of mercury. The brain has a house-cleaning protein that removes dangerous waste products, which comes in three varieties: APO-E2, APO-E3, and APO-E4. The APO-E2 protein can carry 2 atoms of mercury out of the brain; APO-3, one; and AOP-E4, none. The genes we acquire from each parent determine which two we have. People with two APO-E4 proteins (and thus no APO-E2 or -E3) have an 80 percent chance of acquiring Alzheimer’s disease. And according to one study, autistic children have a huge preponderance of APO-E4 protein in their brains.
Alzheimer’s disease was discovered in 1906, again in America, where dentists used mercury-laden amalgams to fill cavities (dentists in Europe largely avoided them). Today, more than 4 million Americans now have Alzheimer’s disease. It afflicts half of people over the age of 85 and 20 percent aged 75 to 84.
The first symptoms of this disease are difficulty concentrating and variable degrees of memory loss, leading ultimately to devastating mental deterioration. The brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease shrink by 25 percent and have distinct pathologic hallmarks (neurofibillary tangles, amyloid plaques, and phosphorylation of tau protein). Brain cells grown in the laboratory develop the same three pathologic findings when exposed to nanomolar (3.6 × 10-10 molar) doses of mercury, an amount approximating that found in the brains of people who have a lot of amalgam fillings.
Dental amalgams are the main source of mercury in an adult’s brain. An average-sized amalgam filling contains 750,000 micrograms of mercury and releases around 10 micrograms a day. Researchers put radiolabelled mercury amalgams in the teeth of sheep and determined where escaped mercury went with a scanner. They showed that mercury atoms exhaled through the nose travel up filaments of the olfactory nerve to the hippocampus, which controls memory, and to other critical areas in the brain. In another study, rats given the same concentration of mercury that people inhale from their amalgams develop the pathologic markers of Alzheimer’s disease. People with Alzheimer’s disease have mercury levels in their brains that are 2 to 3 times higher than that seen in normal people.
The mercury in flu vaccines also plays a role in this disease. One investigator has found that people who received the flu vaccine each year for 3 to 5 years had a ten-fold greater chance of developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who had zero, 1, or 2 shots.
Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity – mercury’s enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum.
Why do officials at the CDC, FDA, and leaders of the medical and dental establishment discount or ignore all these important facts? Some of them being in the pay of vaccine makers is one reason. The specter of litigation for having sanctioned thimerosal and amalgams and, in the case of the FDA, not doing appropriate safety studies on them is another. But it is more complicated than that. The hypothesis that mercury causes autism and Alzheimer’s disease is a new truth. And as Schopenhauer points out (see my article on him), each new truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. And third, it is accepted as self-evident. The mercury truth is now in the second stage.
In the 1790s Edward Jenner observed that milk maids did not have pock marks on their faces, like people did who had contracted and survived smallpox. Milking cows with cowpox rendered them immune to smallpox. He took fluid from the pustules of infected cows, injected it into children, and found that it protected them, when exposed, from contracting smallpox. The medical establishment of the day dismissed the idea of vaccinating people with cow pus as nonsense; and Sir Joseph Banks, president of the British Royal Society (the IOM of the day), told Jenner that he would ruin his reputation if he tried to publish these findings, which were so much at variance with established knowledge. When other doctors and informed individuals like Thomas Jefferson recognized that "vaccination" did indeed work, its value was, in time, accepted as self-evident. Jenner’s vaccine saved millions of lives and eradicated a disfiguring disease that has a 30 percent mortality rate. (But laboratories in the U.S. and U.S.S.R. preserved the virus that causes smallpox, and we now know that Soviet microbiologists grew vast quantities of it in chicken eggs for use as a biological weapon of mass destruction.)
Today the medical establishment, led by the AAP, AAFP, AMA, CDC, and IOM, has gone to the other extreme. The accepted wisdom now is that vaccines are a panacea. Health care providers start injecting them in infants on the day of birth, and government officials seek to have them made mandatory for all Americans. But some little-discussed facts belie their value. Deaths from diphtheria, for example, declined 90 percent from 1900 to 1930, due to better sanitation and nutrition, before there was a vaccine for this disease. Likewise, the death rate for measles declined 95 percent (13.3 to 0.03 deaths per 100,000 population) between 1915 and 1958, before the vaccine for measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. Viewed from a risk/benefit perspective, providers and government officials downplay the deleterious effects that vaccines can have on one’s health and inflate their benefits. The top medical textbook on the subject is Vaccines, edited by Drs. Plotkin and Orenstein. In the 1999 3rd Edition that I reviewed (a slightly longer 4th Edition was published last year), its authors confine their discussion of mercury in vaccines to two short paragraphs in this 1,230-page book. They do not address concerns that have been raised about its neurotoxicity.
Vaccine manufacturers have started removing thimerosal from vaccines. And for the first time since the state began keeping records on this disease, California has had a decrease, of 6 percent, in the annual number of children over the age of 3 who have been diagnosed with autism. This occurred in children born in 2000, when the phase-out of thimerosal in vaccines began. Iowa has passed a law banning thimerosal in that state, and California has done the same thing for pregnant women and children under 3 (the bill awaits the governor’s signature). But pharmaceutical companies still add thimerosal in their Flu vaccines; and pediatricians are vaccinating children with their remaining supply of thimerosal-containing vaccines, which the FDA has chosen not to recall.
Taking mercury out of vaccines would substantially reduce the incidence of autism, but this alone will not eliminate the disease. Giving too many vaccines over too short a time to infants whose nervous system is not yet fully developed can also trigger autism and its spectrum of disorders. As Dr. Blaylock has shown (see Recommended Reading below), multiple vaccines given close together over-stimulate the brain’s immune system and, via the mechanism of "bystander injury," destroy brain cells.
Avoiding flu shots that contain thimerosal, and having dentists stop implanting mercury amalgams in people’s mouths would lower the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease. If you have amalgam fillings, particularly if there is a family history of Alzheimer’s disease, you might consider having them removed. Be sure to have a dentist do it who follows the protocol established by The International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology for safely removing them.
For the third source of mercury, follow the CDC’s advice and don’t eat mercury-contaminated fish, especially if you are pregnant because mercury in your bloodstream crosses the placenta and is concentrated in the fetus’ brain.
Recommended Reading – in addition to the online links provided above
An excellent review of thimerosal and autism, titled "Mercury in Medicine – Taking Unnecessary Risks," is to be found, of all places, in the Congressional Record. Prepared by its Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness, this report was presented to the Committee on Government Reform, chaired by Congressman Dan Burton (who has an autistic grandson). Congressional Record, May 21, 2003, E1011–E1030.
SafeMinds president, Lyn Redwood, presented testimony at a Congressional hearing held on September 8, 2004 that exposes malfeasance by the CDC and FDA related to thimerosal. It is titled "Truth Revealed: New Scientific Discoveries Regarding Mercury in Medicine and Autism" and is posted on their website, safeminds.org. See also this organization’s 84-page Report to Congress titled, "A Brief Analysis of Recent Efforts in Medical Mercury Induced Neurological and Autism Spectrum Disorders" (September 8, 2004).
"The Three Modern Faces of Mercury" – in fish, vaccines, and dental amalgams – by Thomas Clarkson in Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 110 Supplement 1 February 2002 pages 11–23. This study provides an current-day perspective on mercury exposure, post Calomel, Merthiolate, and Mad Hatters.
If your dentist parrots the American Dental Association stance on this subject and says that "silver" – i.e., mercury – amalgams are perfectly safe, insist that he or she read Dr. Boyd Haley’s response to the president of the ADA on his defense of dental amalgams. It is posted on this website. I sent it to my dentist who I had been going to for a number of years. When he chose to ignore it, I changed dentists – to a mercury-free one and had him remove all my amalgam fillings.
"Mercury: the Silent Killer," Chapter 3 in Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D. As a board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Blaylock, like me, is a member of the medical establishment. He now, however, studies and writes about wellness and complementary/alternative medicine on a full-time basis.
Are Vaccines Safe and Effective? by Neil Z. Miller (2002). This 78-page (paperback) book is well worth reading, especially if you have children or if you are being pressured to get a flu shot.
For a comprehensive review, with 167 scientific references, on how vaccines damage infants’ and soldiers’ brains (Gulf War Syndrome) when given too close together, see Dr. Blaylock’s "Interaction of Cytokines, Excitotoxins, Reactive Nitrogen and Oxygen Species in Autism Spectrum Disorders" in the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association (JANA 2003;6[4]:21–35). See also his study, "Chronic Microglial Activation and Excitotoxicity Secondary to Excessive Immune Stimulation: Possible Factors in GulfWar Syndrome and Autism" in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JAPS 2004;9[2]:46–52). Dr. Blaylock has written a simplified version of these studies for the general public titled "Vaccines: the Hidden Dangers," in his Blaylock Wellness Report (Vol. 1, No. 1), which is published monthly and can be purchased online.
September 29, 2004
Donald Miller (send him mail) is a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle and a member of Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and writes articles on a variety of subjects for LewRockwell.com, including bioterrorism. His web site is www.donaldmiller.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
