People's Assemblies Network

Global Day of Action 15th October



July 31st, 2011

On October 15th citizens around the world will take to the streets to express their outrage at how our rights are being undermined by the alliance between politicians and corporations. From Democracia Real Ya (Real Democracy Now) we invite you to join our call to action by participating in this peaceful protest and calling for other actions on this date. It is time to raise our voice. Our future is at stake, and nothing can hold back the power of millions of people when we unite for a common goal.

Democracia Real Ya is a platform that originated in Spain to coordinate various civil mobilization groups. Under the slogan “We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers”, thousands of people took to the streets on May 15th 2011 to demand a more participatory democracy, to reject corruption in Spain’s political system, and to show our opposition to the austerity measures imposed on us. Following the success of that first demonstration, several movements emerged. Acampadas (tent cities) were set up in central squares in many towns and cities across the country, much like the first occupation of Tahrir Square in Cairo. The acampadas gave rise to popular assemblies, where citizens shape their vision of the future through an inclusive non-hierarchal decision making process. The May 15 movement soon expanded beyond Spanish borders and inspired actions in numerous cities around the world, including a mass demonstration against the Euro Pact on June 19th.

Pressured by financial powers, our political leaders work for the benefit of just a few, regardless of the social, human or environmental cost this may cause. By promoting wars for profit, by impoverishing whole populations, our ruling classes are depriving us of our right to a free and just society.

That’s why we invite you to join this peaceful fight and spread the message that together we have the ability to change this intolerable situation. Let’s take to the streets on October 15th. It’s time for them to listen to us. United, we will make our voices heard!
@democraciarealya @drynternational

Facebook Event


El 15 de octubre ciudadanos y ciudadanas de todo el mundo saldremos a la calle para mostrar nuestra indignación por la pérdida de nuestros derechos a manos de la alianza entre las grandes corporaciones y la clase política. Desde Democracia real Ya os invitamos a participar en esta acción pacífica de protesta internacional, sumándoos a nuestra convocatoria o realizando vuestras propias convocatorias para dicha fecha. Ha llegado el momento de alzar la voz. Nuestro futuro está en juego, y nada puede retener la fuerza de millones de personas cuando se unen con un propósito común.

Democracia real Ya es una plataforma de coordinación de grupos pro-movilización ciudadana que se originó en España. Bajo el lema “No somos mercancía en manos de políticos y banqueros”, miles de personas salimos a la calle el 15 de mayo para exigir una democracia más participativa, oponernos a la corrupción del sistema político y mostrar nuestro rechazo a los recortes sociales que se nos imponían. Tras el éxito de esa primera manifestación, surgieron diversos movimientos y se montaron acampadas en plazas de todo el país, semejantes a la primera ocupación de la Plaza Tahrir en El Cairo. Éstas dieron lugar a asambleas populares, donde los ciudadanos desarrollan sus objetivos mediante un proceso de decisión inclusivo y horizontal. El movimiento 15M enseguida traspasó fronteras y alentó acciones en numerosas ciudades del mundo, entre ellas una multitudinaria manifestación contra el Pacto del Euro el pasado 19 de junio.

Bajo la presión del poder financiero, nuestros gobernantes trabajan por el beneficio de unos pocos, sin que les importe el coste social, humano o medioambiental que esto pueda generar. Promoviendo guerras con fines económicos y llevando a la miseria a pueblos enteros, las clases dirigentes nos despojan de nuestro derecho a una sociedad libre y justa.

Por eso os invitamos a uniros a esta lucha pacífica, difundiendo el mensaje de que juntos somos capaces de cambiar esta intolerable situación. Tomemos las calles el 15 de octubre. Es hora de que se nos escuche. ¡Unidos haremos oír nuestras voces!
@democraciarealya @drynternational

Facebook Event


  1. Pingback: Anarchist Anti-Bankster Picnic #OccupyBankOfEngland #Sept17 #London |

  2. Pingback: Bail out the people instead of the banks « on life and living

  3. To accomplish something we need to be asking for things that are reasonable and attainable.

  4. Glorious Revolution
    The death of Charles II in 1685 meant his Catholic brother was crowned King James II & VII. England with a Catholic King on the throne was too much for both people and parliament and in 1689 the Dutch Protestant Prince William of Orange was invited to replace King James II in what became known as the Glorious Revolution. Despite attempts to secure his reign by force, James was finally defeated by William at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. On February 13, 1689, parliament passed the Declaration of Right, in which it deemed that James, by attempting to flee on December 11, 1688, had abdicated the government of the realm, thereby leaving the Throne vacant. William and Mary were crowned together at Westminster Abbey on April 11, 1689.

    William III of England encouraged the passage of the Act of Toleration 1689, which guaranteed religious toleration to certain Protestant nonconformists. It did not, however, extend toleration to Roman Catholics or those of non-Christian faiths. Thus the Act was not as wide-ranging as James II’s Declaration of Indulgence, which attempted to grant freedom of conscience to people of all faiths.

    However, in parts of Scotland and Ireland Catholics loyal to James remained determined to see him restored to the throne and there followed a series of bloody though unsuccessful uprisings. As a result of these, any failure to pledge loyalty to the victorious King William was severely dealt with. The most infamous example of this policy being the Massacre of Glencoe in 1692. Jacobite rebellions continued on into the mid-eighteenth century until the son of the last Catholic claimant to the throne, |James III & VIII, mounted a final campaign in 1745. The Jacobite forces of Prince Charles Edward Stuart, the “Bonnie Prince Charlie” of legend, were resoundingly defeated at the Battle of Culloden in 1746.

    United Kingdom formed
    Parliamentary Union of England and Scotland 1707, painting by Walter Thomas Monnington.
    the Acts of Union 1707, England (including Wales) and Scotland, which had been in personal union since the Union of the Crowns in 1603, agreed to a political union in the form of a unified Kingdom of Great Britain. The Act of Union 1800 united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland, which had been gradually brought under English control between 1541 and 1691, to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801.
    Since 1707, England, while ceasing to exist as an independent political entity, has remained highly dominant in what is now the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Due to her geographic size and large population, the dominant political and economic influence in the UK stems from England. London has remained the capital city of the UK and has built upon its status as the economic and political center of the UK.

    Enlightenment Britain
    Britain was an important part of the Age of Enlightenment with philosophical and scientific input and a literary and theatrical tradition. Over the next century England played an important role in developing Western ideas of parliamentary democracy, partly via the emergence of a multi-party system, as evidenced in the rise of the Whig and Tory political parties. There were significant contributions to literature, the arts and science. But, like other Great Powers, England was involved in colonial exploitation, including the infamous Atlantic slave trade, until the passing of the 1807 Slave Trade Act made Great Britain the first nation to permanently prohibit trade in slaves.

    Confidence in the rule of law, which followed establishment of the prototype of constitutional monarchy in Britain in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the emergence of a stable financial market there based on the management of the national debt by the Bank of England, contributed to the capacity for, and interest in, private financial investment in industrial ventures. In addition, Britain had an entrepreneurial class which believed in progress, technology and hard work. This Protestant work ethic has been regarded as one of the cornerstones of national prosperity.

    The British Empire
    After the defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) in the Napoleonic Wars (1804-1815), Britain became the principal naval power of the nineteenth century. At its peak, the British Empire was the largest empire in history and for a substantial time was the foremost global power.

    The Industrial Revolution
    Model of the spinning jenny in a museum in Wuppertal, Germany. The spinning jenny was one of the innovations that started the Industrial Revolution.
    Model of the spinning jenny in a museum in Wuppertal, Germany. The spinning jenny was one of the innovations that started the Industrial Revolution.

    England led the Industrial Revolution, a period in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries when technological advances and mechanization transformed a largely agrarian society throughout Europe, causing considerable social upheaval. Much of the agricultural workforce was uprooted from the countryside and moved into large urban centers of production, as the steam-based production factories could undercut traditional cottage industries. The consequent overcrowding into areas with little supporting infrastructure saw dramatic increases in the rise of infant mortality (to the extent that many Sunday schools for pre-working age children, five or six, had funeral clubs to pay for each other’s funeral arrangements), crime, and social deprivation. Many workers saw their livelihoods threatened by the process, and some frequently sabotaged or attempted to sabotage factories. These saboteurs were known as Luddites.

    Suffrage extended
    During the early nineteenth century, the working classes began to find a voice. Concentrations of industry led to the formation of guilds and unions, which, although at first suppressed, eventually became powerful enough to resist government policy. Chartism is thought to have originated from the passing of the 1832 Reform Bill, which gave the vote to the majority of the (male) middle classes, but not to the “working class.” Many people made speeches on the “betrayal” of the working class and the “sacrificing” of their “interests” by the “misconduct” of the government. In 1838, six members of Parliament and six working men formed a committee, which then published the People’s Charter.
    But by the end of the Victorian era (1900), England lost its industrial leadership, particularly to the United States, which surpassed England in industrial production and trade in the 1890s, as well as to the German Empire.

    Victorian England
    Queen Victoria (shown here on the morning of her accession to the Throne, June 20, 1837) gave her name to the historic era
    Marked the height of the British Industrial Revolution and the apex of the British Empire. Although commonly used to refer to the period of Queen Victoria’s rule between 1837 and 1901, scholars debate whether the Victorian period—as defined by a variety of sensibilities and political concerns that have come to be associated with the Victorians—actually begins with the passage of the Reform Act 1832. The era was preceded by the Regency era and succeeded by the Edwardian period
    By virtue of Queen Victoria’s marriage to Prince Albert, son of Duke Ernst I of the small German duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, her descendants were members of the ducal family of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha with the house name of Wettin. Victoria’s son Edward VII and his son George V reigned as members of this house.

  5. New World Encyclopedia
    English Bill of Rights
    Previous (England)
    Next (English Civil War)

    The Bill of Rights 1689 is an English Act of Parliament with the full title An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown and also known by its short title, the Bill of Rights. It is one of the basic documents of English constitutional law, alongside Magna Carta, the 1701 Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts. It also forms part of the law of some other Commonwealth nations, such as New Zealand. A separate but similar document applies in Scotland: the Claim of Right.

    The Bill of Rights 1689 is largely a statement of certain positive rights that its authors considered that citizens and/or residents of a free and democratic society ought to have. It asserts the Subject’s right to petition the Monarch and the Subject’s right to bear arms for defense. It also sets out (or in the view of its writers, restates) certain constitutional requirements where the actions of the Crown require the consent of the governed as represented in Parliament. In this respect, it differs from other “bills of rights,” including the United States Bill of Rights, though many elements of the first eight amendments to the United States Constitution echo its contents. This is in part due to the uncodified constitutional traditions of the United Kingdom, whereby the English Bill of Rights forms a list of rights in respect of the people as represented in Parliament, in addition to those rights already provided for individuals as set out in Magna Carta. The Bill incorporated into law the growing conviction that although some people may inherit privileges, all women and men enjoy the same basic rights which can not be violated even by a Head of State, who is also subject to, not above, the law. The Bill also took the view that the Head of States, and others in authority, have responsibilities towards the governed, and that they are answerable to the people, not to themselves. The Bill of Rights still privileged the Protestant religion, however. It was a significant legal advance in recognizing individual rights and in giving them protection in law but it was also a child of its own time. Nonetheless, the whole notion of inalienable human rights, championed by the Universal Declaration and other documents, may have its origin in this legislation.

    1 Background
    2 Basic tenets
    3 Augmentation
    4 External links
    5 Credits


    In the Glorious Revolution, William III of Orange landed with his army in England on November 5, 1688. James II attempted to resist the invasion. He then sent representatives to negotiate, and he finally fled on December 23, 1688.

    Before William and Mary were affirmed as co-rulers of England and Ireland, they accepted a Declaration of Right drawn up by the Convention Parliament which was delivered to them at the Banqueting House, Whitehall, on February 13, 1689. Having accepted the Declaration of Right, William and Mary were offered the throne, and were crowned as joint monarchs in April 1689. The Declaration of Right was later embodied in an Act of Parliament, now known as the Bill of Rights, on December 16, 1689.

    In the then separate Kingdom of Scotland, the 1689 Claim of Right of the Scottish Estates was expressed in different terms, but to a largely similar effect, declaring William and Mary to be King and Queen of Scotland on April 11, 1689.

    Basic tenets

    The basic tenets of the Bill of Rights 1689 are:

    Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possessed certain immutable civil and political rights. These included:
    freedom from royal interference with the law (the Sovereign was forbidden to establish his own courts or to act as a judge himself)
    freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, without agreement by Parliament
    freedom to petition the king
    freedom from a peace-time standing army, without agreement by Parliament
    freedom [for Protestants] to have arms for defense, as allowed by law
    freedom to elect members of Parliament without interference from the Sovereign
    the freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself (the basis of modern parliamentary privilege)
    freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive bail
    freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial
    Certain acts of James II were specifically named and declared illegal on this basis
    The flight of James from England in the wake of the Glorious Revolution amounted to abdication of the throne
    Roman Catholics could not be king or queen of England since “it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince”. The Sovereign was required to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion
    William and Mary were the successors of James
    Succession should pass to the heirs of Mary, then to Mary’s sister Princess Anne of Denmark]] and her heirs, then to any heirs of William by a later marriage
    The Sovereign was required to summon Parliament frequently, later reinforced by the Triennial Act 1694


    The Bill of Rights 1689 was later supplemented in England by the Act of Settlement 1701, and in Scotland the Claim of Right was supplemented by the Act of Union 1707. The Bill of Rights and Claim of Right contributed a great deal to the establishment of British parliamentary supremacy, and the curtailment of the rights of the monarchy. They largely settled the political and religious turmoil that had convulsed Scotland, England and Ireland in the seventeenth century. The Bill of Rights and Claim of Right were two main causes of the transmutation of Britain into a constitutional monarchy.

    The Bill of Rights 1689 is a predecessor of the United States Constitution, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, like the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution requires jury trials and prohibits excessive bail and “cruel and unusual punishments.” Similarly, “cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments” are banned under Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    The Bill of Rights and Claim of Right are still law in the United Kingdom and are occasionally cited in legal proceedings. On July 21, 1995, a libel case brought by Neil Hamilton, then a Member of Parliament, against The Guardian newspaper was stopped after Mr. Justice May ruled that the prohibition on the courts questioning parliamentary proceedings contained in the Bill of Rights would prevent The Guardian from obtaining a fair trial. Section 13 of the Defamation Act 1996 was enacted subsequently to permit an MP to waive his parliamentary privilege.

    The Bill of Rights was invoked in New Zealand in the 1976 case of Fitzgerald v Muldoon and Others. Shortly after being elected in 1975 Prime Minister Muldoon issued a press release purporting to abolish a superannuation scheme established by the New Zealand Superannuation Act 1974. Although no law had been passed to abolish the scheme the prime minister declared that its abolition had immediate effect because Parliament would shortly introduce a retroactive law abolishing the scheme. The prime minister’s action was challenged in court and the chief justice of New Zealand declared that he had acted illegally, because he had violated Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, which provides:

    That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal [sic].

    Two special designs of the British commemorative two-pound coins were issued in 1989 to celebrate the tercentenary of the Glorious Revolution, one referring to the Bill of Rights and the other to the Claim of Right. Both depict the cipher of William and Mary and mace of the British House of Commons; one also shows a representation of the St. Edward’s Crown and the other, the Crown of Scotland

    External links

    Text of the Bill of Rights
    UK Public Record Office page, which includes a link to a scan of the original Bill of Rights


    New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

    English_Bill_of_Rights (Jul 1, 2006) history

    Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.
    Research begins here…
    Categories: Credited | History


    Powered by MediaWiki
    Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License

    This page was last modified on 3 April 2008, at 20:09.

    Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
    About New World Encyclopedia

  6. Hayley ‘Black-Mamba’ Yendell
    Tupac, You are the spark that lit up reality enough for our generation to unveil the system in place they have to keep the powers that be in power! You sparked the fire in our bellys to make a change! Your Enlightenment is the 21st centuries hope & your vision is will make our aspirations, our possibilities! October 15th 2011- Time for change:
    2pac in court 1994
    ‎2pac in court 1994.

    Hayley ‘Black-Mamba’ Yendell
    Tupac, You are the spark that lit up reality enough for our generation to unveil the system in place they have to keep the powers that be in power! You sparked the fire in our bellys to make a change! Your Enlightenment is the 21st centuries hope & your vision is will make our aspirations, our possibilities! October 15th 2011- Time for change:
    2pac in court 1994
    ‎2pac in court 1994.
    think n the word m8, lol, I just spent 3hrs lay in bed with my mind racing! Like most, I always knew the Portrayed Religions, Economic System, Politics & Suffering are as One, Just as We are One with Earth & Life


    Organic Consumers Association News | Campaigns | GE Food | Organics | Food Locator | Events | Irradiation | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH
    Mad Cow | Toxic Food | Search | Newsletter | Donate | Volunteer | About | Home | recommend site | email this page

    Formula for Disaster: rbGH/rbST: Penthouse magazine March 1999


    After hours of happy play with her friends and with the three huge dogs who
    adore her, my high energy 18-month old daughter loves to curl up on the
    living room rug with a baby bottle full of fresh milk. First, she fluffs
    up a pillow, then rolls into her favorite kick-back position, and for a
    moment, triumphantly hoists the bottle on high like an Olympian basking in
    the glory of winning her first gold medal. Within two minutes, the lush
    liquid has been drained from the bottle, the baby is full, happy, and sound
    asleep. Soon after, I carry her upstairs to her crib, trailed by one of our
    three, 150-pound, bright-eyed Newfoundland dogs who curls up just outside
    the nursery to watch over the toddler he loves more than anything. It would
    be a big mistake for an intruder to
    enter our home, a fatal error to present even a hint of menace to the baby.

    But it takes more than devoted guard dogs and loving parents to shield kids
    from invisible threats — like the increased risk of cancer that independent
    scientists maintain may come from drinking milk from cows treated with
    genetically engineered BGH (bovine growth hormone), which
    the U.S. government poses no danger to consumers. In fact, if it were not
    for a small collection of natural food companies, activists, and a handful
    of scientists who dare to challenge current scientific gospel, you would be
    in the dark on this issue and without any options to exercise when it comes
    to the dairy products you put in your mouth and in the mouths of those you

    If the critics are correct, what’s at stake could be a matter of life and
    death and not only for babies. The critics say-and there is new evidence to
    support them — that consuming BGH-boosted dairy products could contribute
    to your developing cancer of the prostate and colon and present the women in
    your life with a heightened risk of breast cancer. And last fall Canadian
    government health officials triggered a scandal when they complained to
    their union that their bosses, senior regulators in Canada’s version of the
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
    were pressuring them to give the green light for BGH use in Canada even
    though the investigators believe it poses potential health risks to both
    cows and humans.


    In the 1980′s four U.S.-based chemical companies were competing in a high
    stakes race to create and market the first FDA-approved genetically
    engineered veterinary drug — Bovine Growth Hormone — a substance that
    biologically tricks cows into producing lots more milk. The winner would
    seize the high ground in a battle for what was perceived as a
    multibillion-dollar global markets. There had to be a big payoff; it was
    costing tens of millions to develop the drug and it would cost lots more to
    sell it. Corporate careers would be on the line. Winners would be
    richly rewarded. Losing was unthinkable.

    But in April of 1988, Monsanto, the winner in that race, seemed to be in
    trouble with the FDA. In a 14-page letter evaluating the company’s
    application for review, the FDA slapped Monsanto for sloppy work that failed
    to answer crucial questions. For example, on page 6, paragraph 8: “You have
    not established a margin of safety nor have you established a no-effect
    level for some of the parameters in your submission.” (As you read on in
    this article, remember that phrase, “no effect.”)

    The highly critical letter was signed by Richard Lehmann, PhD, at the time,
    director of the division of production drugs at the FDA’s Center for
    Veterinary Medicine. His top Veterinary Medical Officer on bio-engineered
    Bovine Growth Hormone was Richard Burroughs, DVM, a
    Cornell University-trained animal doctor with almost 10 years in government
    service. Dr. Burroughs had been in private practice and developed expertise
    on dairy herds. The FDA hired him in 1979 and thought so highly of him that
    the agency sent him off for advanced studies in toxicology. Then he got his
    biggest assignment.

    “Because I was the only one in the unit who had real dairy herd experience,
    when these Bovine Growth Hormone applications began coming in, my boss
    handed them to me,” Dr. Burroughs told me during a recent interview.

    Naively, Dr. Burroughs approached his task of testing BGH as though he were
    merely doing the job of protecting the health of farm animals — not making
    decisions that could put at risk hundreds of millions of dollars of
    corporate investment, to say nothing of the careers of the
    executives who had spent that money. Then there were the big dairy owners
    and the stockholders of the chemical companies — they had all been told
    that BGH was going to be a gold mine for them, too. And don’t forget the
    politicians whose hands are routinely out to both the dairy interests and
    the chemical companies. Dr. Burroughs didn’t have a clue and he became an
    almost immediate roadblock to the fast track that all those interested
    parties hoped for and expected. Without realizing it, Dr. Burroughs set
    about offending all of those groups by ordering a longer, more complicated,
    more detailed, and more exacting set of tests of the drug’s impact on cows
    than anyone in that collection of stakeholders wanted or anticipated.

    One specific example: Dr. Burroughs learned that the original plan called
    for a single lactation study to prove that BGH effectively triggers a boost
    in milk output. But Dr. Burroughs said that wasn’t adequate as a safety
    test. He insisted on “doing at least a 2-year study because the test cows
    have to get bred, they must have calves, and they have to survive at least a
    second and third lactation. Otherwise it’s not a viable product.”

    At first, Dr. Burroughs’ bosses let him do his job as he saw fit. He was
    worried that the companies hadn’t done adequate testing of the drug to
    determine whether it could be harmful to cows, perhaps by damaging their
    immune system. “I mean, it was a totally new drug,” he says. “And we
    didn’t know what its impact would be on cow health. We already knew about
    the increased risk of mastitis — infection of the udder — and the
    resultant likely requirement for increased use of antibiotics, but we needed
    to know a whole lot more. Some of the cows in early studies of BGH by
    another company wouldn’t breed at all.” (In 1991 the Rural Vermont Farm
    Advocacy Group revealed, according to the Rutland Herald, “that an unusually
    high number of…BGH-treated cows and their offspring had health problems,
    including difficulty in breeding and produced
    deformed or stillborn offspring.”)

    So Dr. Burroughs ordered FDA toxicology and immunology tests to try to
    answer those questions. About a month later, on November 3, 1989, he was
    summoned to a supervisor’s office and fired. Immediately after the agency
    threw him out, Dr. Burroughs told me, he learned that “they had quit doing
    the toxicology studies I’d requested.” In an interview with the Humane
    Farming Association, which the HFA posted on its Website, Burroughs said, “I
    was told that I was slowing down the approval process. It used to be that we
    had a review process at the FDA. Now we have an approval process. I don’t
    think the FDA is doing good, honest reviews anymore. They’ve become an
    extension of the drug industry.”

    Today Dr. Burroughs is rebuilding his private practice, but he still cannot
    fathom the way he was treated by the FDA’s bureaucracy. His firing,
    according to an FDA personnel official, was motivated by
    “performance-related” matters. When PENTHOUSE sought comment from Dr.
    Lehmann on Dr. Burroughs’ job performance, Lehmann refused to discuss the
    case, saying, “I’ve been retired from FDA for five years. I did have
    something to do with [Dr. Burroughs being fired] but I am not going to
    discuss it.”

    Unencumbered by the likes of Dr. Burroughs mucking up its plans, the FDA
    proceeded along the track of approval for BGH despite alarmed appeals from
    organizations like Consumers’ Union, publisher of Consumer Reports so many
    Americans rely on to sort out the truth about product
    claims. In an April 5, 1993 letter to then-FDA Commissioner Dr. David
    Kessler, Consumers Union called into question a sudden change in the use of
    language by the FDA:

    “We are seriously concerned that, in its deliberations on whether to approve
    Bovine Growth Hormone, the [FDA's] Center for Veterinary Medicine is
    introducing an entirely new regulatory concept that is not authorized by the
    Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act–the concept of ‘manageable risk’.

    “In a discussion at the FDA’s Veterinary Advisory Committee on March 31,
    1993, the Committee was asked to consider whether the increased incidence of
    mastitis caused by BGH use represents a ‘manageable risk.’ The Committee
    (with the exception of its consumer representatives) then concluded that the
    risks to human and animal health are ‘manageable’ and that BGH therefore
    should go forward.

    “This is the first we have heard of ‘manageable risk’ as a standard for
    approving a veterinary drug for use in a food animal,” Consumers Union said
    and went to remind the FDA of the agency’s own letter dated April 3, 1988,
    which expressed concern to Monsanto that the company had not
    demonstrated a ‘no-effect’ level for side effects from BGH: “You have not
    established a margin of safety nor have you established a no-effect level
    for some of the parameters in your submission. . .this is particularly true
    for clinical entities such as mastitis . . . it is clear from the data
    presented that if you seek approval of a range of 250-500mg [of BGH] in
    cows/heifers you may not have even a 1x margin of safety. Under current
    standards, this is unacceptable for an over-the-counter approval.

    “We think it appropriate,” Consumers Union continued, “that to obtain
    approval of a production drug, a drug not designed to cure any known
    disease, a manufacturer should be required to demonstrate no adverse side
    effects at the level it is proposing for commercial use. In fact, we would
    expect that [the FDA] would impose a margin of safety so that there would be
    no adverse effect at five times the proposed dosage level.

    “Unfortunately, it begins to appear that FDA is revising its criteria for
    approval to accommodate Monsanto’s needs. After apparently years of trying,
    Monsanto has been unable to demonstrate a “no effect” level for BGH. The
    criteria for approval have therefore been revised to be whether
    BGH use represents a ‘manageable risk’.”

    Chew on that for a moment: Can’t meet the existing criteria for safety
    approval? No sweat. Just get the criteria changed. Wouldn’t you like to
    be able to do that on your job? Consumers Union might as well have saved
    its breath. The power behind BGH was not going to be denied.

    Consumers Union told PENTHOUSE that the FDA in its reply attempted to
    trivialize the consumer group’s profound concern, saying that effect that
    everything carries some risk.

    I first learned of the most important facts in this story because a computer
    scientist in California, who reads my reporting in PENTHOUSE on the cancer
    drug hydrazine sulfate, took the time to email my editor a copy of an
    excellent newsletter, Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly.
    Rachel’s editor, Dr. Peter Montague, had written in detail about what he and
    others see as the emerging cancer threat from Posilac, Monsanto’s trade name
    for its bioengineered BGH. He also focused on the situation of a
    husband-and-wife team of investigative reporters fired by the
    Fox-owned TV station WTVT in Tampa for refusing to tell untruths or “water
    down” the results of their investigation into Posilac after Monsanto
    apparently intimidated the station’s owners. Dr. Montague shared some of
    his research documentation with me, for which I am grateful.


    Last summer, Fox TV suffered the civil court version of a snap kick to the
    groin when a Florida judge refused to throw out a lawsuit against Fox by the
    two broadcasters fired by the company. They are Steve Wilson, among the
    industry’s most famous and feared investigative reporters, and
    his wife, Jane Akre, another award-winning TV broadcaster. I knew Wilson
    more than 15 years ago when he and I worked in competing New York City TV
    newsrooms. I was often jealous of the hard-hitting, meticulously
    researched, substantive pieces he put on the air. His boss back then at
    WCBS-TV, Steve Cohen, now the news director at KCOP-TV in Los Angeles says,
    “Wilson was and is a true samurai journalist. He cares only about the
    story. He doesn’t make nice with people and develop sources; he digs and
    digs. Steve Wilson will use anything he can get to help him discover and
    expose the truth and he is utterly relentless. Without making judgments on
    the current controversy, I can tell you Wilson is not the guy to hire unless
    you are ready for lots of heat. He is very much a big story reporter and
    with the big ones comes big heat.”

    Just ask Chrysler and Ford. Wilson’s investigative reports on Chrysler’s
    defective door latches and Ford’s fire hazard ignition switches won major
    awards and clearly contributed to the public safety but cost the auto makers
    a pile of embarrassment and money. In doing those kinds of
    stories, Wilson had to learn a lot about defending his journalism against
    predictable challenges from big, powerful, angry businesses that employ
    expensive and high-powered legal talent. That made him even more careful
    but no less aggressive. In 1996, Wilson quit as senior investigative
    reporter for the syndicated TV show Inside Edition to spend more time with
    his wife and their new baby.

    Then the Tampa TV station recruited Akre as a full-time anchor/investigative
    reporter, and Wilson part time to produce dramatic investigations starring
    Akre that would help the station build its ratings. When Akre proposed the
    idea of checking into Monsanto’s Bovine Growth Hormone, its use in the
    sunshine state, and what that all means in terms of the public health, the
    station said go for it. Akre spent months doing interviews, unearthing
    documents, writing scripts with Wilson, and editing the taped pieces.

    Just before the series was to begin airing, two important things happened:
    WTVT’s sale to Fox was finalized and Monsanto threatened to sue Fox if
    Wilson and Akre went ahead with their planned story. On the last business
    day prior to the scheduled airing of the reports, Monsanto’s New York City
    lawyer, John J. Walsh, faxed a five-page bomb to Roger Ailes, former top
    Republican-party media operative and now president and chairman of Fox News.
    Walsh reminded Ailes that Posilac had won FDA approval, attacked the
    reporters as biased and then got down to the implied threat of legal action
    against News Corporation, the Rupert Murdoch entity that owns Fox. “There
    is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida,” Walsh thundered, “not
    only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner. On behalf of
    Monsanto, I ask that you and your Fox News colleagues consider thoroughly
    what is at stake and the enormous damage that can be done by the reckless
    presentation of unsupported speculation as fact and the equally reckless
    publication of unsupported accusations or innuendo of fraud, deception, and
    bribery in connection with something as serious as the obtaining of
    approvals for a product such as [Posilac].”

    Fox blinked. Maybe shuddered is a better word.

    “Suddenly,” said Wilson, “the series was no longer scheduled and we began an
    almost nine-month-long process during which Jane and I met with lawyers and
    station executives and rewrote the scripts more than 80 times! In my long
    career of investigative reporting never has there been such a transparent
    cave-in to prior restraint. Fox attempted to cover up the truth by firing
    us and then having a newly hired, less-experienced reporter redo the series
    leaving out crucial facts and reporting some of the same lies and
    distortions we refused to broadcast. It wasn’t just what he left out, it
    was what he left in that makes his piece so egregious.

    “It was,” Wilson told me, “a clear-cut case not only of a news organization
    surrendering rather than having to face a potentially expensive battle over
    the truth in court, but also — and Jane and I plan to so notify the Federal
    Communications Commission — an instance in which a federally licensed
    broadcast station violated the law by instructing employees to report what
    the licensee knew to be false.”

    “Absolutely not!” roared Dave Boylan, general manager of WTVT, during a
    telephone interview with PENTHOUSE on October 29, 1998. For this interview
    Boylan assembled his news director, chief counsel, and new investigative
    reporter Nathan Lang, who strongly rejected Wilson’s assault on his
    re-working of the Akre-Wilson project.

    “For the record,” said Lang, “we left out no crucial facts. There were no
    lies and no distortion, and we stand by the stories we aired — which
    altogether amounted to almost a half-hour of air time.”

    During the same session, WTVT news director Phil Metlin labeled Wilson and
    Akre “two desperate journalists who hide behind the shield of ethics in
    journalism in what is clearly a matter of a dispute with management over not
    having their contracts renewed. It’s a sad day for journalism.”

    A week before this conversation took place, these two “desperate” reporters
    had received the pretigeous Ethics in Journalism Award from the national
    Society of Professional Journalists!

    In a 36-page document a Fox attorney mailed to the plaintiffs last August
    28, Fox-owned WTVT-TV denies the claims of Wilson and Akre and asserts 19
    “affirmative defenses.” Fox’s response to the suit claims the two
    journalists produced biased, one-sided reports, turned them in late, and
    failed to perform their tasks professionally. Fox claims that its only
    reasons for firing the two was their “contentious, argumentative, ad
    hominem, and vituperative conduct and their refusal to abide by [Fox's]‘s
    established policies and procedures.”

    “Contentious and argumentative?” Akre responded in a statement posted on the
    Website she and Wilson created to tell their story after they were yanked
    off the air. “Just what is the proper response when a reporter is ordered
    to deliberately and knowingly lie or distort the truth in a news broadcast
    to the public? Every journalist has a moral and ethical responsibility to
    tell the truth as he or she knows it. And when you’re using the public
    airwaves to broadcast your reports, it is a legal requirement. When Fox
    threatened to fire us for upholding those basic principles, we believed we
    had a clear legal and moral duty to resist their directions to break the law
    and violate the public trust. Steve and I are both confident the jury will
    see these personal attacks for exactly what they are, efforts by a desperate
    defendant who has little legitimate defense for what they’ve done.”

    Reporting on the Akre-Wilson case, the London Observer said, “Murdoch owns,
    among many, many other companies, Actmedia, a PR firm. Monsanto is one of
    its clients. But Akre and Wilson do not believe that they were knifed
    simply to avoid upsetting one of the old brute’s customers. They see the
    censorship as the natural consequence of the domination of communications by
    very right-wing businesses whose owners have more in common with the
    perpetrators of scandals than their audience.”

    “We set out to tell the truth about a giant chemical company”, says Wilson.
    “That used to be something reporters won awards for. As we’ve learned the
    hard way, it’s something you can be fired for these days.”

    What Wilson and Akre wanted to report is available from their Website – From one of the more than 80 drafts of that
    report, all of which were found unacceptable by Fox management, these are
    some of the major points:

    “When the cow gets injected with [Monsanto's] BGH, it stimulates the
    production of another hormone called IGF-1. That’s really the stuff that
    speeds up the cow’s metabolism, causing her to produce up to 30% more milk.
    But some scientists like Prof. Samuel Epstein, MD of the
    University of Illinois’ School of Public Health in Chicago, are warning what
    might be good for the farmers’ bottom line may be big trouble down the line
    for people drinking the milk from treated cows. Since 1989, Epstein has
    warned the government, the medical community, and the public that ‘there are
    highly suggestive if not persuasive lines of evidence showing that
    consumption of this milk poses risks of breast and colon cancer.’

    “Dr. Epstein has earned three advanced degrees, including a medical degree,
    written eight books, and is frequently called upon to advise Congress about
    things in our environment which may cause cancer. He and others like Dr.
    William von Meyer point to what they say is a growing
    body of scientific evidence of a link between IGF-1 and human cancers which
    would not show up for years to come.

    “‘We’re going to save some lives if we review this now. If we allow BGH to
    go on, I’m sure we’re taking excessive risks with society,’ said von Meyer
    who has spent 30 years studying chemical products and testing their effects
    on humans. ‘A human drug requires two years of carcinogenic testing and
    extensive birth defect testing. BGH was tested for 90 days in rats.’

    “Monsanto has consistently rejected the concerns of dissenting scientists
    around the world. Dr. Robert Collier, chief Monsanto BGH scientist says, ‘In
    fact, the FDA has commented several times on this issue after there were
    concerns raised. They have publicly restated human safety confidence this
    is not something knowledgeable people have concerns about.’”


    Only a month after the Tampa husband-and-wife reporting team was given the
    boot, more frightening news about IGF-1 began breaking in peer-reviewed
    scientific publications. In a January 1998 issue of the journal Science, a
    team of Harvard medical researchers reported that men with elevated but
    still normal levels of IGF-1 in their blood are four times more likely to
    get prostate cancer than men with average IGF-1 levels.

    This is a pretty tough study to ignore; it drew on a data base of 15,000
    men. The authors of the report said, “Our results raise concern that the
    administration of [human growth hormone] or IGF-1 over long periods as
    proposed for elderly men to delay the effects of aging may increase risk of
    prostate cancer.” If they’re right, what could giving milk from BGH-boosted
    cows to male babies mean in terms of their later-life risk of prostate

    Then in May, another solid piece of medical research appeared in The Lancet,
    Britain’s premiere medical journal. Researchers at Brigham and Women’s
    Hospital and Harvard Medical School found that women under 51 with the
    highest concentrations of IGF-1 in their blood ran a sevenfold increased
    risk of being stricken by breast cancer. The blood used in the statistical
    analysis was collected in 1989 and 1990 from 32,826 healthy nurses, 397 of
    whom ultimately were diagnosed with breast cancer, and all of them had
    highly elevated levels of IGF-1 both when they were healthy and when they
    were sick.

    On the basis of those two major research findings on IGF-1, I wrote to the
    FDA asking if the agency had seen the studies and if so, did it plan to
    withdraw its approval of BGH. A letter of reply dated July 14, 1998, says
    “Dear Mr. Kamen, FDA is aware of the articles in Science and
    Lancet [but the FDA] is not planning to reconsider its approval of
    Monsanto’s. . .product, Posilac. . .FDA’s determination that [BGH] is safe
    was recently confirmed by the World Health Organization and U.N. Food and
    Agricultural Organization’s Joint Expert Committee on Food

    But the man who is probably the most potent single critic of BGH, the
    University of Illinois’ cancer and environmental medicine expert Dr. Sam
    Epstein, who first warned of a cancer threat from bgh in 1989, told me WHO’s
    Expert Committee functioned “more as a rubber stamp of the FDA than an
    independent body, with its membership overwhelmingly reflecting the
    influence of U.S. regulatory officials, dairy and chemical industry
    consultants, and food and veterinary scientists. Not a single public health
    expert, not a single expert on cancer or preventive medicine sits on that
    committee.” Epstein’s new book, “The Politics of Cancer Revisited,”
    documents the history of research into IGF-1 and how the government has
    ignored its stunning implications.

    Dr. Epstein quotes a 1992 article by a research team unaffiliated with him
    and published in the journal Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. The
    authors reported that the very effective breast cancer drug Tamoxifen works
    by reducing blood IGF-1 levels. And contrary to the assertions of Monsanto
    and the FDA that the IGF-1 produced by injection of Posilac doesn’t get
    passed on to consumers of dairy products, Epstein says there is now
    convincing evidence that it does. Also contrary to current official
    science, Epstein reports IGF-1 is not destroyed by acid
    in the stomach and in fact is protected from digestion by casein, a milk
    protein. Rather it is passed along quite intact into your blood stream.

    And the FDA? See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil of Monsanto. The
    company has steadfastly refused to make public the results of its rat
    studies which it says support the claim that the drug is harmless. Epstein,
    however, says, “The published summary of those studies–reported by the FDA
    in 1990–showed that even low levels of IGF-1 administered to rats for short
    periods of time induced powerful growth-stimulating effects–contrary to the
    misrepresentations of Monsanto and the FDA. This is consistent with my
    prior, public warnings that BGH-produced milk could lead to dangerous
    premature growth in infants quite apart from future cancer risks.”

    Not that it will surprise you, but Dr. Epstein is routinely put down by
    members of the medical establishment as “a gadfly.” However his credentials
    are impeccable and his work speaks for itself: eight books and hundreds of
    articles, most of them published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    In the Introduction to Epstein’s new book, Congressman John Conyers, Jr., a
    pioneer in environmental and public health legislation for the past 30
    years, says Dr. Epstein truly understands the cancer crisis in America and
    we should all “heed his clarion call” to prevention.


    Let’s take a quick, refreshing break from all this talk of deception and
    disease. In fact, let’s have a nice, cool, drink of milk. Maybe we can
    join Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, Baltimore Orioles
    iron man Cal Ripken Jr., and that former “Baywatch” honey Yasmine
    Bleeth–all of whom posed for full-page “milk mustache” ads. After all,
    what could be wrong with milk?

    The sheer power of the Dairy Council’s long-running campaign is impressive,
    but there are some naysayers. Newman’s Own ice cream, Ben and Jerry’s,
    Fresh Fields Whole Foods, and a number of local dairies now advertise their
    opposition to BGH and offer products that don’t contain milk from treated


    Last fall, only days before the deadline for this article, a scandal of
    major proportions began to break in Canada. Six Health Canada scientists
    filed grievances before the Public Service Staff Relations Board, painting
    apicture of corruption around their government’s review of Monsanto’s BGH
    and other drugs that promise to yield huge profits if approved.

    They said their supervisor in Health Canada, Canada’s version of the FDA,
    had pressured them to quickly approve BGH, and one scientist testified
    before the board that there newly appointed director had warned that if they
    persisted in their slow, meticulous evaluation of drugs, he would transfer
    them to another department of government, where “they would never be heard
    of again.” The pressure to quickly approve drugs was attributed to the
    powerful lobbying by industry of Health Canada officials.

    At the same time, Sierra Club Canada made public documents that Health
    Canada apparently had kept from the Canadian Senate committee that is
    currently investigating BGH’s safety for humans and animals. The documents
    reveal that Monsanto’s claim–supported by the FDA–that the 90-day rat
    study demonstrated no negative health effects from BGH is not true. The
    suppressed documents reveal that 20-30 per cent of the rats fed the highest
    doses of BGH produced antibodies to the drugs. Some rats also developed
    cysts of the thyroid and early signs of harm to the prostate-all strong
    warning signals that more investigation must be done.

    In their scathing critique of Health Canada’s early report on Posilac, an
    internal review team of scientists said the initial reviewer had accepted
    “the assertion by the manufacturer that [BGH] does not cause cancer in man
    or animals without providing a rationale. . .There are reports on file that
    Monsanto pursued aggressive marketing tactics, compensated farmers whose
    veterinary bills escalated due to increased side effects associated with the
    use of [BGH], and covered up negative trial results. All four [original]
    U.S. manufacturers refused to disclose the lists of their research grants to
    US universities. . .

    “The fundamental mandate of the Human Safety requirements of the Food and
    Drugs Act and Regulations toward any veterinary drug prescriptions for
    food-producing animals is to enlist each and every associated risk to human
    health and thereby limit its real and potential dangers to both society and
    the individuals within. This does not appear to have properly been followed
    toward the risk assessment of [BGH]. . .

    “The only short-term toxicology study for three months in rats, was
    improperly reported to conclude that BGH was not and could not be absorbed
    into the bloodstream. The usually required long-term toxicology studies to
    ascertain human safety were not conducted. Hence, such possibilities and
    potential as sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological
    derangement’s were not addressed. Virtually no attention appears to be
    directed toward a critically anticipated increase in [BGH-related] infective
    mastitis in dairy cows and also the
    concomitantly expected increase in antibiotic therapy and antibiotic
    resistance in the farm-borne pathogens of humans. ”

    Embarrassed by that internal review, Canada’s Health Minister sent the whole
    BGH issue to a pair of panels–one for human health and one for animal
    health. However, it was quickly learned that one of the “independent”
    experts had been a paid consultant to Monsanto. Another expert’s wife was
    employed by Monsanto’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Searle Canada, until a few
    months before the panel was formed. And critics called the animal health
    panel’s objectivity into question because the panel was operating through
    the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, which had publicly endorsed
    BGH. The association’s statement on BGH was pulled from its Website days
    after the senators questioned it.

    In Vermont where consumer activists have led the fight against genetically
    engineered BGH, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group has delivered to
    their state’s members of Congress copies of the documents unearthed by the
    Canadian investigators. The activists want Monsanto’s FDA license to sell
    BGH pulled until the whole affair can be fully investigated based on the
    newly revealed data. But Monsanto’s chief BGH spokesperson Gary Barton
    insists, “The FDA had this data all along,” and issued its 1993 finding that
    BGH is harmless after reviewing that data.

    What now? For its part, FDA has begun to run for cover. “We do not have
    data from the study,” FDA spokesperson John Scheid told Vermont’s Rutland
    Herald. Scheid said the FDA had relied on a summary of the data provided by

    “That is both astonishing and, if true, appalling,” says Consumers Union
    research scientist Dr. Michael Hansen. “How could the FDA have relied on a
    summary from a manufacturer with a billion-dollar interest in getting a
    product approved for market? What other summaries instead of actual data
    have been the basis for crucial decisions by the FDA? And finally, is the
    milk from BGH-treated cows safe? The painful but obvious fact is that we do
    not have reliable answers to these questions and we must.

    “Consumers Union now urges Congress to fully investigate this matter
    including ordering an independent analysis of Monsanto’s 90-day rat feeding
    study and meeting with the Canadian scientists who produced the important,
    new information about evidence of apparent toxicity.”

    If U.S. lawmakers fail to take that kind of action, it will be blatant
    evidence that Congress’ soul has been sold to the dairy and chemical
    industries. Stay tuned. The Akre-Wilson case against Fox is scheduled to
    begin in Tampa very soon.

    While we wait for the results of all of the above, my wife and I have
    decided to give our baby dairy products from non-BGH sources only, and we
    are treating ourselves with the same respect. Untreated milk, cheese, and
    yogurt are becoming available almost everywhere in the country. Drs.
    Burroughs and Epstein and others who seem to know what they’re talking about
    highly recommend this course of action. . .Or you can trust the FDA.
    # # # (c) 1999 General Media
    Communications, Inc.
    News | GE Food | Organics | Food Locator | Events | Irradiation | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH
    Mad Cow | Toxic Food | About Us | Newsletter | Donate | Join Us | Keyword Search | Home – tell a friend
    Campaigns : Starbucks : Safeguard our Students : Monsanto Watch
    Please support our work, send a tax-deductible donation to OCA

    to BioDemocracy News
    (published every 6 weeks) previous issues
    Organic Consumers Association
    6101 Cliff Estate Rd., Little Marais, MN 55614
    Activist or Media Inquiries: (218) 226-4164, Fax: (218) 226-4157
    By Robert Cohen Executive Director Text Only

    The ICEMAN Had More Than Just Icy Blood In His Veins
    The ICEMAN Had More Than Just Icy Blood In His Veins

    Milk did not kill the Iceman, but his 25-year-old body,
    preserved and mummified for more than 50 centuries inside of
    a glacier, died with severe arthritis and heart disease. Did
    all sheepherders suffer a similar fate as a result of their
    dairy diets?

    In 1991, the Iceman became an overnight sensation. The well-
    preserved corpse of a 5300-year-old man was found in a
    melting glacier between Italy and Austria.

    Besides his stash of hallucinogenic mushrooms, and a torso
    that was liberally ornamented with tattoos, the man’s body
    had many things to teach 21st century man about life long

    Archeological coroners have determined many things about the
    man’s way of life. Teams of investigative forensic
    scientists and paleobotanists have found microscopic
    bacteria and pollens from hop blossoms, proving that the man
    did not vanish in the middle of winter as had been
    previously theorized. In fact, an arrow to his back and
    other factors may be evidence that the Iceman was a

    This investigation and analyses would make for a fascinating
    episode of the hit CBS TV show, CSI.

    The 5300-year-old Iceman wore leather underwear and outer
    garments fashioned from animal skins. One conclusion shocked
    even the pathobiologists. That one conclusion remains
    perfectly clear. Based upon stomach contents (fibers of
    meat) and artifacts found in his backpack, and a rigorous
    examination of the man’s internal organs, it was observed
    that the man had “abnormally hardened arteries, due no doubt
    to his unhealthily high-cholesterol diet.”

    Although there is some controversy, one of the lead
    investigators, Konrad Spindler believes that the man was a
    shepherd. He believes that the Iceman perished in a summer
    storm while searching for one of the sheep that he herded.
    Apparently, his diet consisted of ovine milk, and lots of

    The Iceman also had severe arthritis and diarrhea. Perhaps
    sacrifice of a man with severe illnesses was society’s
    antibiotic pill. Such was the fate of pre-historic men who
    drank diseased body fluids from other mammals.

    I just finished reading Brenda Fowler’s ICEMAN. On page 151.
    Here’s where it got very interesting for me. A CAT scan
    revealed that part of the Iceman’s brain suggested signs of
    a stroke. Here is what the author writes:

    “The CAT scans revealed a heavily calcified region in what
    was probably the man’s abdominal aorta-the largest artery in
    the body, at the point where it breaks into the main vessels
    that go to the legs-as well as in the carotid artery, which
    carries blood from the heart to the neck. This was a clear
    sign of arteriosclerosis-hardened arteries-a condition that
    occurs when plaques adhere to the walls of the arteries,
    partly blocking the flow of blood…but the iceman was not
    very old, and zur Nedden was amazed at how much plaque had
    already accumulated.”

    Milk and Heart Disease, see:

    The age of the man was estimated to be between 25 and 30.
    Severe arthritis. Heart disease. Diarrhea. Milk drinker.

    Makes sense to me. After all, a sheepherder would be
    drinking lots of saturated animal fat and cholesterol in the
    milk from the sheep that he herded. Very little has changed
    in 53 centuries.

    Robert Cohen, author of: MILK A-Z
    Executive Director (
    Dairy Education Board

    Do you know of a friend or family member with one or more of these milk-related problems? Do them a huge favor and forward the URL or this entire file to them.

    Do you know of someone who should read these newsletters? If so, have them send an empty Email to and they will receive it (automatically)!



    Alex Jones
    Quote of the Day: “Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the USA characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” –David Rockefeller


  8. Asking for things that are reasonable and attainable? Who are we asking? The planet belongs to all of us… Do we really need to ask anyone for anything? And as of yet there are no official demands except that the people of this world wake up and decide they want the existing system to change. What we want it to become can be looked at once we are awake and mobilized.

  9. Pingback: 15.10.11 (united for global change) « Home is where the HARD DISK is

  10. Pingback: Occupy London, Global Day of Action | Cuts Disgust

  11. A tribute to the 15 M/15 O movement: Outbreak of Revolution:

  12. A text from the spanish 15M movement:


    We are the discontent, we are the indignant. According to you all, we are nobody, we are nothing. We are the people who serve your tables, those who clean, those who cook, those who do your construction, those who follow orders. We are the people that you refuse to see, the people that you use to legitimate your power every four years. We are the people that, for you, are just another statistic, only a number in your reports.

    At Sol we realized that which unites us, we recognized the discontent. We are united by a willingness to change reality, to confront and change a political and social model that equates us to merchandise.

    But not only this. Now, we are also conscious of the power that we have when we are organized. We have confirmed that through inclusive participation and the use of assemblies direct democracy is a reality.

    And now you ask us to tell you what we want, to ask you for something…an electoral system? perhaps a small reform?

    We are not asking you for the plaza in May, we have taken it. We are not asking for the bookshelves or the tents, we have constructed them. We are not asking for the commissions or the workers’ unions, we have formed them. We are not even asking for light, for here and now the Sun shines strongly. You feel the need to give yourself legitimacy by receiving petitions and making us believe that you all can solve our problems. But now we know that we are the owners of and responsible for ourselves. Due to this, from this point on, for now until forever, we ask you all for nothing. Because nothing is that which you have always given. We are accustomed to receiving nothing. We will no longer follow the path you have laid out or walk to the beat of your drum.

    From now on, our work will be to construct an alternative to you. It will be to construct a world in which many worlds can fit together and coexist. A world constructed for and by the people. A world that respects nature, a world in which we can breath. We have already started, we will continue going forward. From now on, we ask the rest of the planet to walk together with us so that we can create this reality together.

    people of the world, rise up!

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.