Thursday, 24 April 2014

Guatemalan STD medical experiments were just one crime in a long history of medical-government collusion to use humans as guinea pigs

It has now been widely revealed that the United States conducted medical experiments on prisoners and mental health patients in Guatemala in the 1940's. Carried out by a government-employed doctor working in a psychiatric hospital, these experiments involved intentionally infecting Guatemalans with syphilis (and other STDs) without their knowledge in order to determine the effectiveness of penicillin. They were sponsored in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and they've now been widely reported by ABC News, the Washington Post and many other mainstream papers (who have suddenly taken an interest in a subject they normally wouldn't touch).

The outrage against this inhumane medical science experiment is reflected in mainstream news headlines across the globe, and the Guatemalan government now characterizes this sad chapter in U.S. history as a "crime against humanity." News reporters are shocked in reporting the story, and U.S. government officials seem to be almost beside themselves in discovering that this ever took place in America.

But what you're about to reveal here will shock you even more. The U.S. medical experiments on Guatemalan citizens, you see, barely scratch the surface of the criminal experiments the U.S. government and the medical industry has carried out on innocent victims over the last century.

The U.S. pretends to be surprised

The discovery of this medical experiment generated a series of official U.S. responses that can only be called political theater given how contrived they are. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton went on the record saying, "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health... We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs called the discovery "reprehensible," and President Obama even picked up the phone to call Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom and offer a verbal apology.

You know what all these actions have in common? An implied message that this experiment from the 1940's was somehow an aberrant mistake that never happens in America. They want you to believe this is just some lone researcher who went off his rocker and committed some atrocious crime in the name of medicine. But the reality is that Big Pharma and the U.S. government use innocent people in medical experiments every single day. This wasn't some bizarre, rare event. It was a reflection of the way the U.S. government has consistently conspired with the medical industry to test drugs on innocent victims and find out what happens.

U.S. government and Big Pharma continue to commit crimes against humanity

This pattern extends to the modern day, of course. Remember the Gulf War veterans who were diagnosed with Gulf War Syndrome shortly after returning from serving in Iraq? It is widely believed that this syndrome is the side effect of experimental vaccines and drugs forced upon these soldiers by the U.S. government. In the timeline of medical experiments shown below, you'll notice a disturbing pattern of governments exploiting soldiers for their experiments.

More recently, last year's swine flu vaccine was essentially one grand medical experiment involving hundreds of millions of people around the world. The vaccine was entirely untested and had never been scientifically tested and then approved as safe by any health authority, yet it was aggressively pushed by government authorities in the hopes that people would take the shots so they could find out what happens. (It's a lot like Nancy Pelosi trying to pass the health care reform bill so that we can all find out what's in it...)

The timeline of medical experiments on innocent victims

What's really interesting about this story is how the discovery of this 1940's medical experiment suddenly came to light. It was "discovered" by Susan M. Reverby, a professor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, who said, "I almost fell out of my chair when I started reading this... Can you imagine? I couldn't believe it."

Well maybe she should have been reading NaturalNews. We've been publishing the truth about medical experimentation on innocent humans for years. If Susan Reverby knew anything about how the medical industry really operates, she wouldn't have been surprised at all. The history of medical experiments conducted in the name of the pharmaceutical industry is chock full of accounts of prisoners, blacks, women and other groups being exploited as human lab rats (see the timeline link below to read it for yourself).

Upon discovering this medical experiment, Susan Reverby was so outraged that she went public with her findings. ABC News picked up on the story and then it spread like wildfire throughout the mainstream media. That's the curious thing about this: The mainstream media so rarely prints the truth about the history of medicine that when something truthful appears, it's "amazing" news.

But here on, we print these kind of stories every single day. To discover that yet another group of victims was abused and exploited by a government-paid doctor working for the drug industry is routine. The abuses of human life committed by the pharmaceutical industry goes far beyond 1500 Guatemalans and actually extends to tens of millions of Americans who are being treated like guinea pigs every single day.

Psychiatry - An Industry of Death

If you really want to be freaked out by the true, documented history of how people have been tortured, abused, injected, maimed and otherwise had their lives destroyed by the medical industry, check out the Psychiatry An Industry of Death Museum created by CCHR

You can actually walk through this museum yourself. It's in Los Angeles, and it's one of the most disturbing things you'll ever see about the true history of medicine. The STD experiments in Guatemala, by the way, were carried out in a psychiatric hospital. (No surprise.) I walked through this museum and practically found myself in tears before it was over. The things that psychiatrists and doctors will do to other human beings in the name of "medicine" will rock you to the core.

The psychiatric industry has done unspeakable things to women, children, prisoners, senior citizens, African Americans and racial minorities -- all in the name of "science" and "medicine." In fact, these experiments continue to this day in the form of the psychiatric drugging of children who are diagnosed with fictitious health conditions such as "ADHD." See my disease mongering engine to invent your own psychiatric disorders, if you want a bit of satire on this subject:

Nobody has documented the real history of medicine's criminal abuse of human beings as well as CCHR - the Citizens' Commission on Human Rights. Check out their amazing, shocking and eye-opening videos such as The Marketing of Madness  and Making A Killing Here, you'll begin to scratch the surface of the true story of criminal abuse by the pharmaceutical industry -- often in collusion with government. Normally, these stories are all covered up and we never hear about them. After all, to discover that the U.S. government conspired with the pharmaceutical industry to infect Guatemalans with a sexually-transmitted disease doesn't exactly reflect the kind of image Obama wishes for people to believe about America.

A timeline of medical experiments on humans

Below, I've reprinted a timeline of human medical experiments that we first put together here on NaturalNews several years ago. This is just a partial list, by the way: There are more experiments that were conducted in secret and were never documented.

As you'll see here, the experiment on Guatemalans just barely begins to paint the full picture of just how many human beings have been killed, poisoned, maimed or otherwise had their lives destroyed by criminal medical experiments carried out in the name of "medical science."

Many of these experiments involve organizations whose names you would instantly recognize: Merck, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, the Sloan-Kettering Institute, the National Institutes of Health, Massachusetts General Hospital and many more. This is like a Who's Who of the pharmaceutical industry, and they were all involved in using human beings as guinea pigs to conduct medical experiments.

And as you'll see below, the Guatemalan experiment isn't even the most grotesque or disturbing.

Note: Below is only a partial list of human medical experiments we've documented here on NaturalNews. See the full list here:

(1845 - 1849)

J. Marion Sims, later hailed as the "father of gynecology," performs medical experiments on enslaved African women without anesthesia. These women would usually die of infection soon after surgery. Based on his belief that the movement of newborns' skull bones during protracted births causes trismus, he also uses a shoemaker's awl, a pointed tool shoemakers use to make holes in leather, to practice moving the skull bones of babies born to enslaved mothers (Brinker).


New York pediatrician Henry Heiman infects a 4-year-old boy whom he calls "an idiot with chronic epilepsy" with gonorrhea as part of a medical experiment ("Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After").


Dr. Arthur Wentworth turns 29 children at Boston's Children's Hospital into human guinea pigs when he performs spinal taps on them, just to test whether the procedure is harmful (Sharav).


Harvard professor Dr. Richard Strong infects prisoners in the Philippines with cholera to study the disease; 13 of them die. He compensates survivors with cigars and cigarettes. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors cite this study to justify their own medical experiments (Greger, Sharav).


Dr. Hideyo Noguchi of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research publishes data on injecting an inactive syphilis preparation into the skin of 146 hospital patients and normal children in an attempt to develop a skin test for syphilis. Later, in 1913, several of these children's parents sue Dr. Noguchi for allegedly infecting their children with syphilis ("Reviews and Notes: History of Medicine: Subjected to Science: Human Experimentation in America before the Second World War").


Medical experimenters "test" 15 children at the children's home St. Vincent's House in Philadelphia with tuberculin, resulting in permanent blindness in some of the children. Though the Pennsylvania House of Representatives records the incident, the researchers are not punished for the experiments ("Human Experimentation: Before the Nazi Era and After").


Dr. Joseph Goldberger, under order of the U.S. Public Health Office, produces Pellagra, a debilitating disease that affects the central nervous system, in 12 Mississippi inmates to try to find a cure for the disease. One test subject later says that he had been through "a thousand hells." In 1935, after millions die from the disease, the director of the U.S Public Health Office would finally admit that officials had known that it was caused by a niacin deficiency for some time, but did nothing about it because it mostly affected poor African-Americans. During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi doctors used this study to try to justify their medical experiments on concentration camp inmates (Greger; Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).


(1932-1972) The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek, University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library).


In order to test his theory on the roots of stuttering, prominent speech pathologist Dr. Wendell Johnson performs his famous "Monster Experiment" on 22 children at the Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home in Davenport. Dr. Johnson and his graduate students put the children under intense psychological pressure, causing them to switch from speaking normally to stuttering heavily. At the time, some of the students reportedly warn Dr. Johnson that, "in the aftermath of World War II, observers might draw comparisons to Nazi experiments on human subjects, which could destroy his career" (Alliance for Human Research Protection).


Dr. William C. Black infects a 12-month-old baby with herpes as part of a medical experiment. At the time, the editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Francis Payton Rous, calls it "an abuse of power, an infringement of the rights of an individual, and not excusable because the illness which followed had implications for science" (Sharav).

An article in a 1941 issue of Archives of Pediatrics describes medical studies of the severe gum disease Vincent's angina in which doctors transmit the disease from sick children to healthy children with oral swabs (Goliszek).

Researchers give 800 poverty-stricken pregnant women at a Vanderbilt University prenatal clinic "cocktails" including radioactive iron in order to determine the iron requirements of pregnant women (Pacchioli).


The Chemical Warfare Service begins mustard gas and lewisite experiments on 4,000 members of the U.S. military. Some test subjects don't realize they are volunteering for chemical exposure experiments, like 17-year-old Nathan Schnurman, who in 1944 thinks he is only volunteering to test "U.S. Navy summer clothes" (Goliszek).

Merck Pharmaceuticals President George Merck is named director of the War Research Service (WRS), an agency designed to oversee the establishment of a biological warfare program (Goliszek).

(1944 - 1946) A captain in the medical corps addresses an April 1944 memo to Col. Stanford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, expressing his concerns about atom bomb component fluoride's central nervous system (CNS) effects and asking for animal research to be done to determine the extent of these effects: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect ... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor ... Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure." The following year, the Manhattan Project would begin human-based studies on fluoride's effects (Griffiths and Bryson).

The Manhattan Project medical team, led by the now infamous University of Rochester radiologist Col. Safford Warren, injects plutonium into patients at the University's teaching hospital, Strong Memorial (Burton Report).


Continuing the Manhattan Project, researchers inject plutonium into three patients at the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital (Sharav).

The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence and the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States ("Project Paperclip").

(1945 - 1955) In Newburgh, N.Y., researchers linked to the Manhattan Project begin the most extensive American study ever done on the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water (Griffiths and Bryson).


Continuing the Newburg study of 1945, the Manhattan Project commissions the University of Rochester to study fluoride's effects on animals and humans in a project codenamed "Program F." With the help of the New York State Health Department, Program F researchers secretly collect and analyze blood and tissue samples from Newburg residents. The studies are sponsored by the Atomic Energy Commission and take place at the University of Rochester Medical Center's Strong Memorial Hospital (Griffiths and Bryson).

(1946 - 1947) University of Rochester researchers inject four male and two female human test subjects with uranium-234 and uranium-235 in dosages ranging from 6.4 to 70.7 micrograms per one kilogram of body weight in order to study how much uranium they could tolerate before their kidneys become damaged (Goliszek).

Six male employees of a Chicago metallurgical laboratory are given water contaminated with plutonium-239 to drink so that researchers can learn how plutonium is absorbed into the digestive tract (Goliszek).

Researchers begin using patients in VA hospitals as test subjects for human medical experiments, cleverly worded as "investigations" or "observations" in medical study reports to avoid negative connotations and bad publicity (Sharav).

The American public finally learns of the biowarfare experiments being done at Fort Detrick from a report released by the War Department (Goliszek).


Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that "certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract" (Goliszek).

A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, "It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits," revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

The CIA begins studying LSD's potential as a weapon by using military and civilian test subjects for experiments without their consent or even knowledge. Eventually, these LSD studies will evolve into the MKULTRA program in 1953 (Sharav).

(1947 - 1953) The U.S. Navy begins Project Chatter to identify and test so-called "truth serums," such as those used by the Soviet Union to interrogate spies. Mescaline and the central nervous system depressant scopolamine are among the many drugs tested on human subjects (Goliszek).


Based on the secret studies performed on Newburgh, N.Y. residents beginning in 1945, Project F researchers publish a report in the August 1948 edition of the Journal of the American Dental Association, detailing fluoride's health dangers. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) quickly censors it for "national security" reasons (Griffiths and Bryson).


(1950 - 1953) The U.S. Army releases chemical clouds over six American and Canadian cities. Residents in Winnipeg, Canada, where a highly toxic chemical called cadmium is dropped, subsequently experience high rates of respiratory illnesses (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

In order to determine how susceptible an American city could be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of Bacillus globigii bacteria from ships over the San Francisco shoreline. According to monitoring devices situated throughout the city to test the extent of infection, the eight thousand residents of San Francisco inhale five thousand or more bacteria particles, many becoming sick with pneumonia-like symptoms (Goliszek).

Dr. Joseph Strokes of the University of Pennsylvania infects 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis to study the disease (Sharav).

Doctors at the Cleveland City Hospital study changes in cerebral blood flow by injecting test subjects with spinal anesthesia, inserting needles in their jugular veins and brachial arteries, tilting their heads down and, after massive blood loss causes paralysis and fainting, measuring their blood pressure. They often perform this experiment multiple times on the same subject (Goliszek).

Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, later of MKULTRA infamy due to his 1957 to1964 experiments on Canadians, publishes an article in the British Journal of Physical Medicine, in which he describes experiments that entail forcing schizophrenic patients at Manitoba's Brandon Mental Hospital to lie naked under 15- to 200-watt red lamps for up to eight hours per day. His other experiments include placing mental patients in an electric cage that overheats their internal body temperatures to 103 degrees Fahrenheit, and inducing comas by giving patients large injections of insulin (Goliszek).


The U.S. Army secretly contaminates the Norfolk Naval Supply Center in Virginia and Washington, D.C.'s National Airport with a strain of bacteria chosen because African-Americans were believed to be more susceptible to it than Caucasians. The experiment causes food poisoning, respiratory problems and blood poisoning (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

(1951 - 1956) Under contract with the Air Force's School of Aviation Medicine (SAM), the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston begins studying the effects of radiation on cancer patients -- many of them members of minority groups or indigents, according to sources -- in order to determine both radiation's ability to treat cancer and the possible long-term radiation effects of pilots flying nuclear-powered planes. The study lasts until 1956, involving 263 cancer patients. Beginning in 1953, the subjects are required to sign a waiver form, but it still does not meet the informed consent guidelines established by the Wilson memo released that year. The TBI studies themselves would continue at four different institutions -- Baylor University College of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda and the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine -- until 1971 (U.S. Department of Energy, Goliszek).

American, Canadian and British military and intelligence officials gather a small group of eminent psychologists to a secret meeting at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Montreal about Communist "thought-control techniques." They proposed a top-secret research program on behavior modification -- involving testing drugs, hypnosis, electroshock and lobotomies on humans (Barker).


At the famous Sloan-Kettering Institute, Chester M. Southam injects live cancer cells into prisoners at the Ohio State Prison to study the progression of the disease. Half of the prisoners in this National Institutes of Health-sponsored (NIH) study are black, awakening racial suspicions stemming from Tuskegee, which was also an NIH-sponsored study (Merritte, et al.).

(1953 - 1974) The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) sponsors iodine studies at the University of Iowa. In the first study, researchers give pregnant women 100 to 200 microcuries of iodine-131 and then study the women's aborted embryos in order to learn at what stage and to what extent radioactive iodine crosses the placental barrier. In the second study, researchers give 12 male and 13 female newborns under 36 hours old and weighing between 5.5 and 8.5 pounds iodine-131 either orally or via intramuscular injection, later measuring the concentration of iodine in the newborns' thyroid glands (Goliszek).

As part of an AEC study, researchers feed 28 healthy infants at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine iodine-131 through a gastric tube and then test concentration of iodine in the infants' thyroid glands 24 hours later (Goliszek).

(1953 - 1957) Eleven patients at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston are injected with uranium as part of the Manhattan Project (Sharav).

In an AEC-sponsored study at the University of Tennessee, researchers inject healthy two- to three-day-old newborns with approximately 60 rads of iodine-131 (Goliszek).

Newborn Daniel Burton becomes blind when physicians at Brooklyn Doctors Hospital perform an experimental high oxygen treatment for Retrolental Fibroplasia, a retinal disorder affecting premature infants, on him and other premature babies. The physicians perform the experimental treatment despite earlier studies showing that high oxygen levels cause blindness. Testimony in Burton v. Brooklyn Doctors Hospital (452 N.Y.S.2d875) later reveals that researchers continued to give Burton and other infants excess oxygen even after their eyes had swelled to dangerous levels (Goliszek, Sharav).

A 1953 article in Clinical Science describes a medical experiment in which researchers purposely blister the abdomens of 41 children, ranging in age from eight to 14, with cantharide in order to study how severely the substance irritates the skin (Goliszek).

The AEC performs a series of field tests known as "Green Run," dropping radiodine 131 and xenon 133 over the Hanford, Wash. site -- 500,000 acres encompassing three small towns (Hanford, White Bluffs and Richland) along the Columbia River (Sharav).

In an AEC-sponsored study to learn whether radioactive iodine affects premature babies differently from full-term babies, researchers at Harper Hospital in Detroit give oral doses of iodine-131 to 65 premature and full-term infants weighing between 2.1 and 5.5 pounds (Goliszek).

(1955 - 1957) In order to learn how cold weather affects human physiology, researchers give a total of 200 doses of iodine-131, a radioactive tracer that concentrates almost immediately in the thyroid gland, to 85 healthy Eskimos and 17 Athapascan Indians living in Alaska. They study the tracer within the body by blood, thyroid tissue, urine and saliva samples from the test subjects. Due to the language barrier, no one tells the test subjects what is being done to them, so there is no informed consent (Goliszek).

(1956 - 1957) U.S. Army covert biological weapons researchers release mosquitoes infected with yellow fever and dengue fever over Savannah, Ga., and Avon Park, Fla., to test the insects' ability to carry disease. After each test, Army agents pose as public health officials to test victims for effects and take pictures of the unwitting test subjects. These experiments result in a high incidence of fevers, respiratory distress, stillbirths, encephalitis and typhoid among the two cities' residents, as well as several deaths (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).


The U.S. military conducts Operation Plumbbob at the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Operation Pumbbob consists of 29 nuclear detonations, eventually creating radiation expected to result in a total 32,000 cases of thyroid cancer among civilians in the area. Around 18,000 members of the U.S. military participate in Operation Pumbbob's Desert Rock VII and VIII, which are designed to see how the average foot soldier physiologically and mentally responds to a nuclear battlefield ("Operation Plumbbob", Goliszek).

(1957 - 1964) As part of MKULTRA, the CIA pays McGill University Department of Psychiatry founder Dr. D. Ewen Cameron $69,000 to perform LSD studies and potentially lethal experiments on Canadians being treated for minor disorders like post-partum depression and anxiety at the Allan Memorial Institute, which houses the Psychiatry Department of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. The CIA encourages Dr. Cameron to fully explore his "psychic driving" concept of correcting madness through completely erasing one's memory and rewriting the psyche. These "driving" experiments involve putting human test subjects into drug-, electroshock- and sensory deprivation-induced vegetative states for up to three months, and then playing tape loops of noise or simple repetitive statements for weeks or months in order to "rewrite" the "erased" psyche. Dr. Cameron also gives human test subjects paralytic drugs and electroconvulsive therapy 30 to 40 times, as part of his experiments. Most of Dr. Cameron's test subjects suffer permanent damage as a result of his work (Goliszek, "Donald Ewan Cameron").

In order to study how blood flows through children's brains, researchers at Children's Hospital in Philadelphia perform the following experiment on healthy children, ranging in age from three to 11: They insert needles into each child's femoral artery (thigh) and jugular vein (neck), bringing the blood down from the brain. Then, they force each child to inhale a special gas through a facemask. In their subsequent Journal of Clinical Investigation article on this study, the researchers note that, in order to perform the experiment, they had to restrain some of the child test subjects by bandaging them to boards (Goliszek).


The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) drops radioactive materials over Point Hope, Alaska, home to the Inupiats, in a field test known under the codename "Project Chariot" (Sharav).


In response to the Nuremberg Trials, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram begins his famous Obedience to Authority Study in order to answer his question "Could it be that (Adolf) Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" Male test subjects, ranging in age from 20 to 40 and coming from all education backgrounds, are told to give "learners" electric shocks for every wrong answer the learners give in response to word pair questions. In reality, the learners are actors and are not receiving electric shocks, but what matters is that the test subjects do not know that. Astoundingly, they keep on following orders and continue to administer increasingly high levels of "shocks," even after the actor learners show obvious physical pain ("Milgram Experiment").


Researchers at the Laurel Children's Center in Maryland test experimental acne antibiotics on children and continue their tests even after half of the young test subjects develop severe liver damage because of the experimental medication (Goliszek).

The FDA begins requiring that a new pharmaceutical undergo three human clinical trials before it will approve it. From 1962 to 1980, pharmaceutical companies satisfy this requirement by running Phase I trials, which determine a drug's toxicity, on prison inmates, giving them small amounts of cash for compensation (Sharav).


Chester M. Southam, who injected Ohio State Prison inmates with live cancer cells in 1952, performs the same procedure on 22 senile, African-American female patients at the Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in order to watch their immunological response. Southam tells the patients that they are receiving "some cells," but leaves out the fact that they are cancer cells. He claims he doesn't obtain informed consent from the patients because he does not want to frighten them by telling them what he is doing, but he nevertheless temporarily loses his medical license because of it. Ironically, he eventually becomes president of the American Cancer Society (Greger, Merritte, et al.).

Researchers at the University of Washington directly irradiate the testes of 232 prison inmates in order to determine radiation's effects on testicular function. When these inmates later leave prison and have children, at least four have babies born with birth defects. The exact number is unknown because researchers never follow up on the men to see the long-term effects of their experiment (Goliszek).

(1963 - 1966) New York University researcher Saul Krugman promises parents with mentally disabled children definite enrollment into the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, N.Y., a resident mental institution for mentally retarded children, in exchange for their signatures on a consent form for procedures presented as "vaccinations." In reality, the procedures involve deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of infected patients, so that Krugman can study the course of viral hepatitis as well the effectiveness of a hepatitis vaccine (Hammer Breslow).

(1963 - 1971) Leading endocrinologist Dr. Carl Heller gives 67 prison inmates at Oregon State Prison in Salem $5 per month and $25 per testicular tissue biopsy in compensation for allowing him to perform irradiation experiments on their testes. If they receive vasectomies at the end of the study, the prisoners are given an extra $100 (Sharav, Goliszek).

Researchers inject a genetic compound called radioactive thymidine into the testicles of more than 100 Oregon State Penitentiary inmates to learn whether sperm production is affected by exposure to steroid hormones (Greger).

In a study published in Pediatrics, researchers at the University of California's Department of Pediatrics use 113 newborns ranging in age from one hour to three days old in a series of experiments used to study changes in blood pressure and blood flow. In one study, doctors insert a catheter through the newborns' umbilical arteries and into their aortas and then immerse the newborns' feet in ice water while recording aortic pressure. In another experiment, doctors strap 50 newborns to a circumcision board, tilt the table so that all the blood rushes to their heads and then measure their blood pressure (Goliszek).

(1964 - 1967) The Dow Chemical Company pays Professor Kligman $10,000 to learn how dioxin -- a highly toxic, carcinogenic component of Agent Orange -- and other herbicides affect human skin because workers at the chemical plant have been developing an acne-like condition called Chloracne and the company would like to know whether the chemicals they are handling are to blame. As part of the study, Professor Kligman applies roughly the amount of dioxin Dow employees are exposed to on the skin 60 prisoners, and is disappointed when the prisoners show no symptoms of Chloracne. In 1980 and 1981, the human guinea pigs used in this study would begin suing Professor Kligman for complications including lupus and psychological damage (Kaye).

Exposed Wikipedia Holds Bias against Natural Health

In an article by the watchdog group Alliance for Natural Health (ANH), Wikipedia entries for alternative and natural medicine are shown to consistently have severe censorship, misinformation, and vandalism. Since Wikipedia is an extremely popular reference site on the internet with over 16 million articles, this bias towards conventional medicine negatively affects the accessibility of accurate natural health information.

Wikipedia is an on-line international collaboration of volunteers who post, edit, and research a variety of topics. According to Wikipedia's Five Pillars, "articles should strive for a neutrality, cite verifiable, authoritative sources, and honor multiple points of view." Issues arise when solid, referenced information conflicts with another perspective and is edited mercilessly or deleted. Contributors have little or no accountability and can post, edit, or vandalize an entry anonymously or even under a false "expert" alias. This was seen when a prominent Wikipedia contributor was discovered to be a 24-year-old drop out posing as a tenured college professor.

Natural and alternative medicine articles appear to be particularly vulnerable to partisan misinformation on Wikipedia. According to ANH, a few of these abuses are seen in the following instances:

A libelous article on Dr. Julian Whitaker was flagged in December 2007 due to neutrality issues, yet the case still has yet to be resolved.

Supportive, science based information on Orthomolecular Medicine is repeatedly edited and replaced with critical opinions.

Misinformation under the Nutritionist entry implies that ADA-registered dietitians are the only experts. There is more information about dietitians in the article than nutritionists who are supposed to be the subject of the article.

Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is quoted on Wikipedia, saying alternative medicine is a "set of practices which cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fails test," as well as "if a technique is demonstrated effective in properly performed trials, it ceases to be alternative and simply becomes medicine."

Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, left the organization due to concerns about its integrity. He states: "In some fields and some topics, there are groups who 'squat' on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles. Vandalism, once a minor annoyance, has become a major headache-made possible because the community allows anonymous contribution. Many experts have been driven away because know-nothings insist on ruining their articles."

Currently, there are several alternatives to Wikipedia for creditable information. Two examples are Citizendium and Wiki4CAM, the Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Encyclopedia.

As noted by ANH, Wikipedia is an incredible and powerful force on the internet; therefore, the spread of misinformation regarding natural and alternative medicine is of particular concern for the health and wellness community.

About the author

Carolanne enthusiastically believes if we want to see change in the world, we need to be the change. As a nutritionist, natural foods chef, and wellness coach, Carolanne has encouraged others to embrace a healthy lifestyle of organic living, gratefulness, and joyful orientation for over 13 years. Through her website she looks forward to connecting with other like-minded people from around the world who share a similar vision.

LA Times pinkwashing reaches new low by pushing "preventive" chemotherapy drugs for women

Check this out: The LA Times is pinkwashing their entire website masthead with a pink ribbon set behind the word "Angeles," which of course means "angels." See it for yourself in this Fair Use screen shot:

If that's not enough pinkwashing, the LA Times website also has a pro-vaccine stance that may surprise you. Its "news briefs" section isn't named "News Briefs" or "News Updates." Instead, it's called "booster shots." I'm not kidding. They actually call it "booster shots," which is of course a phrase used to refer to vaccine injections.

Check it out in this screen shot (it's the title of the center column):

Just to blow your mind even more -- get ready for this one -- the LA Times also ran an article entitled The puzzle of why more women don't take preventive drugs. This article -- and I'm not making this up -- actually claims that the way to prevent breast cancer is to take chemotherapy drugs as prevention even when you don't have breast cancer!

The writer of this article, a reporter named Melissa Healy, never even mentions nutrients as prevention measures. The entire article is expressing puzzlement over why millions of women don't sign up to start taking toxic chemotherapy drugs even though they don't have cancer!

And the logic goes like this: (here are a few paragraphs straight out of the story for purposes of commentary and public education)

"The millions of Americans who take a pill each day to drive down their cholesterol or blood pressure do not generally think of themselves as "sick." They believe that they are treating one thing -- high cholesterol or blood pressure -- and helping to prevent something worse: a heart attack or stroke.

For women who worry about becoming the oft-quoted "1 in 8" who will develop breast cancer in her lifetime, two well-established drugs can do for breast cancer what statins and blood pressure drugs do for heart attacks and strokes: drive down their odds of happening.

Cardiovascular medications are aggressively advertised, widely prescribed and talked about freely among friends and co-workers. [But] breast cancer prevention drugs are virtually invisible on the American pharmaceutical landscape."

The article goes on to suggest that more women should be taking tamoxifen and raloxifene as preventive drugs that will somehow keep them healthy.

The article then goes on to quote poison-peddling doctors with quotes like this one: "These medications have been underutilized to this point by anyone's standards..."

And then there's this quote which expresses bewilderment at why patients wouldn't trust drug companies to tell the truth: "The hatred and mistrust of the pharmaceutical companies was just astounding."

Gee, really? You mean after all the lies about HRT drugs, statin drugs and antidepressant drugs were exposed? You mean after all the fraud, the bribery, the faked clinical trials and the massive chemical toxicity experienced by people on Big Pharma's drugs, that people don't trust the drug companies anymore? Naw... how could that be?

The entire article, by the way, makes absolutely no mention of vitamin D (which prevents 77 percent of all cancers) , selenium, green tea or other nutrients that reduce breast cancer risk far more effectively and safely than any pharmaceutical that has ever been concocted in a lab.

It sort of makes you wonder if the LA Times is actually trying to inform people or just repeat the same propaganda that Big Pharma dishes out on a daily basis. To write about breast cancer today without even referncing the mountain of research on vitamin D is highly irresponsible and in my mind, it brings into question the journalistic credibility of the writer who penned this particular story (Melissa Healy).

I'm not linking to the original story in the LA Times, by the way, because I don't want to give them any link popularity points, but you can easily find it by searching for the article title on Google.

Scammy "tiny belly" acai weight loss ads

Oh, and it gets even better. For months, the LA Times has been running ads promoting a scammy acai berry weight loss company that uses fake news websites to trick people into turning over their credit card details. These credit cards then get charged a "membership fee" (which is non-refundable after 7 days) for the privilege of being charged every month for a shipment of non-remarkable acai berry tablets.

These are the illustrated ads that say things like "shrink your belly using this one weird tip."

This whole acai berry operation is run by an offshore company engaged in dubious e-commerce transactions, and it has generated an avalanche of consumer complaints. Why would the LA Times continue to run ads for scammy weight loss schemes that are so deceptive? As a courtesy, by the way, I emailed the LA Times myself to let them know about this, just in case they haven't noticed all the complaints. Maybe they'll do the right thing and ban the ads.

Will the LA Times pursue the real story here?

In any case, the LA Times is clearly a paper that appears to be strongly aligned with breast cancer pinkwashing -- not just in terms of promoting pink ribbon propaganda but also with highly questionable editorial coverage that almost reads like it was written by the drug companies themselves and then repackaged as an LA Times article.

I suppose if you want the pro-pharmaceutical version of breast cancer lies, read the LA Times. If you want the truth, however, read NaturalNews. Better yet, read my free special report which reveals even more lies about the breast cancer industry:

Also, read these 10 facts about the breast cancer industry you're not supposed to know:

By the way, I'm sure the LA Times editorial staff will probably be forwarded this article, so here's a message to all of you who work there: If you really want to cover a huge story about breast cancer, there's probably a Pulitzer prize waiting for any determined journalist willing to dig up the real truth about pinkwashing scams and where the money is actually going that's raised from all these pink ribbon events and products.

Follow the money, my friends, and you will uncover a wildly different story from the one you've been reporting. If you need some leads and tips, contact me through NaturalNews and I'll be happy to get you started on the real story behind the cancer industry scams.

If you wish to contact me through back channels, I will assure your privacy and promise to keep your identity a secret until such time as you give me permission to make it publicly known (such as when you publish an article or a book that you want to make public).

There's a huge story here, folks. And it's not the story line that Big Pharma is feeding you. The real story is that the cancer industry non-profits are pulling off the biggest money laundering scam of the century, and they are operating with absolutely no accountability because no one is asking the obvious questions such as "Where is this money really going and how is that supposed to find a cure for cancer?"

Or the really big question, "If you find a cure for cancer, will you give it away for free? Will you make that pledge right now?"

You see, there are huge questions about the breast cancer non-profit industry that no one seems to be asking in the mainstream media. And then there are the questions about why no one in the MSM is even asking these questions in the first place. That's why more and more people are turning to websites like because they know they can find honest, skeptical reporting without the usual layer of corporate B.S. that seems to dominate the newsrooms of the top newspapers (and news websites) in America today.

In any case, I harbor no ill will against the LA Times. I just hope they wake up and realize they're being hoodwinked by the pinkwashing arm of the cancer industry so that they can change course and start reporting the truth about breast cancer.

Because the truth, it turns out, is the biggest story of all.

Law experts speak out - academics who "guest author" medical journal articles guilty of fraud

Back in 2008, Mike Adams sounded an alarm about something the mainstream media seemed to know little about -- Big Pharma companies had long been paying in-house writers to ghostwrite scientific research articles then paying (Adams called it "bribing") doctors and high-level academics to pretend they were the authors

Unfortunately, the use of ghostwriters and guest authored journal papers hasn't gone away. But here's good news: two prominent attorneys are speaking out that the practice is not just a sham but constitutes legal fraud.

So why be concerned about ghostwriting in the medical profession? It turns out that Big Pharma and other medical industry sponsored research has been published with the names of academic "guest authors" tacked on -- although these highly degreed "authors" may have made slim to no contributions to the so-called research.

Yet these very articles have been published in leading medical journals and through the years have helped hype hormone replacement therapy, numerous anti-depressants and other potentially dangerous drugs including Vioxx, Neurontin and Fen-Phen. In turn, these articles are often cited by their drug company sponsors to promote off-label use of their products and bring in more millions to the prescription pharmaceutical industry.

The ghostwriting and guest authoring of industry-controlled studies clearly raise what the law experts call "serious ethical and legal concerns, bearing on integrity of medical research and scientific evidence used in legal disputes."

It is such a breach of ethics that Professors Simon Stern and Trudo Lemmens of the University of Toronto law faculty have flat out called for "guest" authors of medical and scientific articles to be charged with professional and academic misconduct and fraud, even if the articles attributed to the "ghost" or "guest" writers contain factually correct information. The law experts compare the academic "ghostwriting" and tacked on bogus academic authorships to racketeering and even the world's oldest profession.

In a media release about their article (which was just published in the journal PLoS Medicine), the law professors stated: "Guest authorship is a disturbing violation of academic integrity standards, which form the basis of scientific reliability. The false respectability afforded to claims of safety and effectiveness through the use of academic investigators risks undermining the integrity of biomedical research and patient care."

Lemmens, who is also a member of the University of Toronto's school of medicine faculty, had particularly hard hitting words for academics who participate in guest authorship which involves "lending" their names and receiving substantial credit where little or none is due. "It's a prostitution of their academic standing," said Lemmens. "And it undermines the integrity of the entire academic publication system."

In their article, entitled "Legal Remedies for Medical Ghostwriting: Imposing Fraud Liability on Guest Authors of Ghostwritten Articles," Stern and Lemmens argue that because medical journals, academic institutions, and professional disciplinary bodies have done little if anything to enforce effective sanctions against this practice of bogus authorship of research papers, a more successful effective approach would be to take legal action. Imposing liability on the guest authors "..may give rise to claims that could be pursued in a class action based on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)."

"The same fraud could support claims of fraud on the court against a pharmaceutical company that has used ghostwritten articles in litigation," the law professors added. Moreover, that kind of claim could prevent the Big Pharma sponsor of "ghosted" and "guest authored" articles from presenting them as evidence in court, and could result in sanctions against attorneys who try to use any of these articles as legally valid evidence in a malpractice, drug injury or other case.

The disinformation myths against homeopathy

Homeopathic medicine is at present one of the leading alternative therapies practiced by physicians in Europe (particularly France, Germany, UK, and Italy) and Asia (especially on the Indian subcontinent)(EU Commission, 1997; Prasad, 2007). Since homeopathy's development as a medical specialty in the early 1800s, it has been a leading alternative to orthodox medicine internationally, and it has posed an ongoing threat to the scientific, philosophical, and economics of conventional medical care.

The homeopathic approach to healing maintains a deep respect for symptoms of illness as important defenses of a person's immune and defense system. While conventional medicine often tends to assume that symptoms are something "wrong" with the person that need to be treated, inhibited, suppressed, or biochemically manipulated, homeopaths tend to assume that symptoms are important defenses of the organism that are most effectively resolved when treatments nurture, nourish, or mimic the symptoms in order to initiate a healing process. Ultimately, these two different approaches to healing people have led to various conflicts.

It is common, for instance, for homeopaths to question the alleged "scientific" studies that conventional drugs are "effective" as treatments because of concern that many of these treatments tend to suppress symptoms or disrupt the complex inner ecology of the body and create much more serious illness. Just as opiate drugs of the 19th century gave the guise of healing, homeopaths contend that many modern-day drugs provide blessed short-term relief but create immune dysfunction, mental illness, and other chronic disease processes in its wake. Further, the fact that most people today are prescribed multiple drugs concurrently, despite the fact that clinical research is rarely conducted showing the safety or efficacy of such practices, forces us all to question how scientific modern medicine truly is.

Homeopaths contend that increased rates of cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue, and various chronic diseases for increasingly younger people may result from conventional medicine's suppression of symptoms and disease processes. It is therefore no surprise that conventional physicians and Big Pharma have a long and dark history of working together to attack homeopathy and homeopaths.

The antagonism against homeopathy began when the highly respected Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann, MD, first developed the system in the early 1800s. Hahnemann was a translator of leading medical and pharmacology texts and the author of the leading textbook used by pharmacists of his day.

Despite Hahnemann's high stature in medicine, pharmacology, and chemistry, his strong critique of conventional medicine led to personal attacks against him by orthodox physicians as well as by the apothecaries (the drug makers of that time) who were philosophically and economically threatened by Hahnemann's work. When homeopathy arrived in America in 1825, it grew rapidly due to its widely recognized success in treating infectious disease epidemics that raged in the early and mid-1800s. Then, when the American Institute of Homeopathy became the first national medical organization in 1844, a rival organization developed that proposed to stop the growth of homeopathy (Rothstein, 1985, p. 232). That organization called itself the American Medical Association.

Paul Starr's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, acknowledged the stature that homeopathy achieved in America in the mid-and later 19th century: "Because homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox medicine" (p. 97).

U.S. President William McKinley even dedicated a special monument to Dr. Hahnemann in Washington, DC, in 1900, which still stands today as the only monument in America's capital to the deeds of a physician.

However, because of the economic, philosophical, and scientific threat that the paradigm and practice of homeopathy represents, the vitriol and antagonism still exists. It is therefore enlightening to expose the disinformation that is spread about homeopathy and then understand WHO is leading this disinformation campaign (the second-part of this article will name names and discuss two individuals, one from the USA and one from the UK, who are presently leaders in the campaign against homeopathy).

The Myths Spread about Homeopathy

Like other propagandists, the homeopathy deniers seek to create disinformation by using three straightforward techniques. First, the homeopathy deniers make a simple false accusation, a lie, and repeat it constantly and consistently in an attempt to make it a new "truth". Second, this repetition is then done within the context of some legitimizing element. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, that element is a corruption of normal science, an analysis of scientific evidence that creates reasons (excuses) to exclude high quality studies that show positive results (even those studies that have been published in leading conventional medical journals), and a mis-use of the concept of skepticism. The homeopathy deniers ignore or downplay the substantial body of evidence from basic science and clinical research, from outcome studies, from cost-effectiveness studies, and from epidemiological evidence, and only quote from those studies that verify their own point of view, rather than reviewing the entire body of evidence.

The third component of the technique is to sell the lie to a vulnerable population in an attempt to have repetition from that group. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, the vulnerable groups are often young students of science, who are enamored with the language and elitism of their newly learned craft, but who lack the deep understanding and experience to realize that they are being "used" by the deniers. The homeopathy deniers also play on the fears of those older and established scientists and physicians and who are led to believe that "if homeopathy is true, then everything about modern medicine and science is false." This over-simplification of reality is commonly repeated. However, just as quantum physics does not "disprove" all of physics, but rather, it extends our capability to understand and predict events on extremely small and extremely large systems. Likewise, homeopathy does not disprove all of modern pharmacology but extends our understanding of the use of extremely small doses of medicinal agents to elicit healing responses.

History is replete with orthodox medicine and science being steadfastly resistant to different systems of medicine and paradigms of healing. Although , the average physician and scientist tends to be threatened by new ideas, a common attribute of leading physicians and scientists is a certain openness and humility due to the common and even expected evolution of knowledge.

It should be acknowledged upfront that homeopathic practitioners, patients, and users of these natural medicines are often surprised and amazed at the results they experience in the treatment of themselves, children, infants, animals, and even plants. In my observations over the past 40 years, most people are skeptical about homeopathy until they try it and see for themselves...and there are then good reasons that tens of millions of people all over the world use and rely upon these natural medicines for a wide range of acute and chronic ailments. That said, the challenge is not just trying homeopathy, but first learning something about it so that you can use it correctly and effectively.

Sadly, however, the homeopathy deniers tend to spread disinformation about homeopathy, including the following myths:

Myth #1: "There is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines work."

Such statements are a creative use of statistics, or what might be called "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Actually, most clinical research studies conducted with homeopathic medicines show a positive outcome. However, if "creative statisticians" evaluate only the smaller number of large studies, a positive result is less likely, not because homeopathy doesn't work, but because these larger studies tend to dispense only ONE homeopathic medicine for everyone in the study, without any degree of individualized treatment that is typical of the homeopathic method.[1] To claim that homeopathic medicines do not work using only these studies is as illogical as to say that antibiotics are ineffective just because they do not cure for every viral, fungal, or bacterial infection.

Myth #2: "The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are 'poorly conducted studies'."

Wrong! Studies showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Cochrane Reports, Chest (the publication of the British Society of Rheumatology), Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology (journal of the Society of Clinical Oncology), Human Toxicology, European Journal of Pediatrics, Archives in Facial Plastic Surgery, Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and many more.[2] ALL of these studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled. Further, because of bias against homeopathy, these studies have been scrutinized rigorously, perhaps even more rigorously than is usual.

The weak response from the homeopathy deniers is that the above studies are "cherry-picked." Well, it seems that there are a lot of "cherries" (clinical studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines). Also, numerous of the above leading medical journals have published meta-analyzes of clinical trials on specific diseases and have shown that homeopathic medicines have significantly more benefits than does a placebo. And further, the deniers erroneously equate the "negative" studies evidence that the whole system of homeopathy does not work, when, in fact, these studies are usually of a preliminary nature that explored the use of one or a small handful of remedies for a specific condition.

Ironically, the one review of research that the homeopathic deniers most commonly assert as strong evidence that there's no difference between homeopathic medicines and placebo (Shang et al, 2005) has been shown to be bad or certainly inadequate science (Walach, et al, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Rutten, 2009, Rutten and Stolper, 2008; Ludtke and Rutten, 2008).

Myth #3: "12C is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean."

Pure fantasy (and fuzzy math)! In fact, the 12C dose requires 12 test tubes, and 1% of the solution is drawn from each of the 12 test tubes. It is also very typical for the "deniers" of homeopathy to assert with a straight face that the making of a single homeopathic medicine requires more water than exists on the planet. It seems that the skeptics are so fundamentalist in their point of view that they consciously or unconsciously mis-assume that the dilutions used in homeopathy grow proportionately with each dilution; they assume that each dilution requires 10 or 100 times more water with each dilution -- which they don't, and even the most elementary articles and books on homeopathy affirm this fact. Sadly (and strangely), most of the skeptics of homeopathy seem to read each other's misinformation on homeopathy and have a propensity to spin the reality of what homeopathy is in ways that misconstrue it.

Myth #4: "There is nothing in a homeopathic medicine. It is just water."

Ignorance and direct disinformation. First, a large number of homeopathic medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies are what are called "low potencies," that is, small or very small doses of medicines, most of which are in a similar dose to which certain powerful hormones and immune cells circulate in our body. Second, using samples of six different medicines made from minerals, scientists at the Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have consistently confirmed that the starting substance is still present in the form of nanoparticles of the starting minerals even when the medicine has undergone hundreds of serial dilutions--with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution, as per the homeopathic method (Chikramane, Suresh, Bellare, 2010).[3] Further, leading chemistry and physics journals have published other research to confirm that there are differences between water and "homeopathic water" (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, Napoli, Niccoli, et al, 2008; Rey, 2003)

Myth #5: "If we do not presently understand how homeopathic medicines work, then, they cannot work. It's witchcraft."

Lame on face value. How many more times in history do scientists and others need before they realize that we do not understand a lot of nature's mysteries, but our lack of understanding does not mean that the mysteries are not real. Calling homeopathy "witchcraft" clearly is someone's fear of what they do not know or understand, and a common observation from history is that whenever one goes on a witchhunt, a witch is found (one way or another). The fact that there is a small but significant body of basic sciences research that has shown physical and biological effects from homeopathic medicines tends to be ignored (Endler, Thieves, Reich, et al 2010; Witt, Bluth, Albrecht, et al, 2007). To publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals is not a common practice from witches (or warlocks).

Dr. Karol Sikora is a respected oncologist and dean of the University of Buckingham medical school (in England). Sikora has expressed serious concern about the "Stalinist repression" that certain skeptics of homeopathic and alternative medicines engage (Sikora, 2009). Sikora has harshly criticized "armchair physicians" and others who seem to have little or no experience in using these treatments with real patients.

One other critical piece of evidence to show and even prove the unscientific attitude of the homeopathy deniers is that they now wish to close off all discussion of the efficacy of homeopathic medicines (Baum and Ernst, 2009). These medical fundamentalist actually discourage keeping an open mind about homeopathy. One must question this unscientific attitude that select antagonists to homeopathy embody...and one must even wonder why they maintain such a position.

The second part of this article will provide further specific evidence of the unscientific attitude and actions from those individuals and organizations who are leading the campaign against homeopathy. A leading antagonist to homeopathy from the US and another from the UK will discussed in order to shed light on this important debate in health care. Stay tuned to find out who they are and why they maintain their point of view.


Baum M, Ernst E. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? American Journal of Medicine. 122,11:November 2009. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009/03.038.

Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242.

Elia V, and Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.

Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Marchettini N, Tiezzi E(2008). New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Dilute Solutions. A Conductivity Study at 25?°C in Relation to Ageing. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 37:85-96.

Endler PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 25-36.
EU Commission report evaluating implementation of Homeopathy Directives 92/73 EEC and 92/74/EEC, 1997.

Fisher P, 2006. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145-147. Published online 2006 January 26. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek007

Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.

Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80.

Rey L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.
Rothstein WG. American Physicians in the 19th Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1985.

Rutten L, 2009.
Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008.

Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, Juni P, Dorig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet. 366,9487, 27 August 2005:726-732.

Sikora K. Complementary medicine does help patients. Times Online, February 3rd 2009. Online document at:

Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.

Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3.

Walach H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2081; author reply 2083-6.

Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies--a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.

[1] Although individualization of treatment is one of the hallmarks of the homeopathic method, there are exceptions to this common rule. For instance, there have been four large randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled studies that have shown that homeopathic Oscillococcinum is effective in treating people with influenza or influenza-like syndrome (Vickers and Smith, 2006).

[2] References to these and other studies can be found in the following article: The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence --

[3] Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by
 Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy.

About the author:
America's leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author of The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana's work at

Dana has authored 9 other books, including Homeopathy A-Z, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).

The Magician Who Could Not Make Homeopathy Disappear

A campaign of disinformation on homeopathic medicine has been very active in United Kingdom and in the United States, and my previous article at this website provided some detail about this effort.

Perhaps the leading opponent to homeopathy in the United States is the magician James Randi. Magicians use various tricks to make things disappear, and Mr. Randi is working hard at making homeopathy disappear... however, to be a successful magician one must learn to fool and deceive people, and Mr. Randi is performing his tricks to try to make homeopathy disappear. Thankfully, he has not been successful.

This short article is not meant to be exhaustive on Randi's disinformation campaign against homeopathy but providing some overview of who he is and what he has said and done will hopefully shed light on the nature of his information and how trustworthy he may or may not be.

Please know that this review and critique of Mr. Randi is not an ad hominem attack on him. I have a great amount of respect for Mr. Randi as an entertainer and magician, and I'm sure that he is a quite lovely person to his friends, but whether he is nice or lovely or entertaining or competent is not the point of this article. Instead, this article reviews his actions, his priorities, and the causes that he has supported, all of which are reasonable and appropriate areas for critique and are not personal attacks on who he is.

James Randi, Magician Extraordinaire and Master of Deception

James Randi is a first-class magician who appeared many times on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and who, more recently, has become famous for supposed "debunking" of various paranormal phenomena and "pseudoscience." However, one must remember that in order to become an accomplished magician, James Randi became expert in having people look at one hand while he was creating "magic" (or clever deception) with the other.

Randi receives a lot of press because of his $1 million "challenge" to anyone who claims to provide hard evidence for homeopathic medicine or other "paranormal" phenomena. Although few serious researchers have taken Randi and his "prize" seriously, I participated in an experiment with which Randi was connected in 2003, and this experience taught me much about him. I should first say that I had no expressed desire to win his prize, and even if this experiment had a positive result, I would not have received any monetary award.

Mark Golden, a producer for John Stossel and ABC's 20/20 program, asked me to participate in a merging of "reality television" and "science." He asked if there was a laboratory experiment that could be conducted to prove that homeopathic medicines had biological activity (or not)....and to add a little more tv drama to it, Golden told me a successful result could lead to winning $1 million to a homeopathic organization from James Randi. I told him that there were several such experiments, but one study was particularly noteworthy because it was conducted by Professor Madeleine Ennis, a former skeptic of homeopathy who was a professor of biochemistry at Queens College in Belfast, Ireland. Further, I told this producer that three other universities had replicated her experiment (Belon, Cumps, Ennis, 1999; Belon, Cumps, Ennis, 2004).

I agreed to participate in the experiment if Professor Ennis conducted the study or served as a consultant to the study to assure that it was correctly conducted. The producer agreed. I was therefore flown to New York to be interviewed, and a month later the study was to be conducted. Professor Ennis is a highly respected researcher, and she told the producer and me that she had no interest in conducting a "TV science experiment," but she would review the protocol of the researcher they chose to use.

When Professor Ennis was ultimately sent the protocol, she was shocked at what she received. This protocol was NOT her experiment (Ennis, 2004). In fact, it was clearly a study that was a set-up to dis-prove homeopathy. Ennis noted that certain chemicals used in the experiment were known to kill the specific types of cells that the experiment would be counting. Further, she listed egregious problems with this study (Ennis, 2004) and asserted that the "researcher" who created this new study had seemingly never previously conducted and published a study in his life. Actually, the researcher who created this study and who was to conduct it was a lab technician without a graduate degree and without any previous publication history.

Professor Ennis and I also learned that this same researcher had conducted the same faulty experiment for the BBC which sought to discredit homeopathy (BBC, 2002). The narrator of this BBC program explicitly asserted that this TV experiment was a "replication" of Professor Ennis' previous study, though this assertion was sheer fabrication.

I then contacted 20/20's producer, Mark Golden, to alert him of this problem, and he simply told me that he promised to "consult" with Professor Ennis, but he was not obligated to do what she (or I) wanted. Although I had assumed that working with a producer at 20/20 would assure high ethical and journalistic standards, I began to wonder if my assumptions were correct. As it turned out, I also neglected to realize the impact of working with a team connected to John Stossel, a reporter who was previously caught fabricating a "study" on organic foods that incorrectly asserted that there was no difference between organic and conventional foods (Dowie, 2001).

In Stossel's commentary on homeopathy, he had the audacity to assert that the "university scientists who reviewed the test protocols and said they were 'technically sound' and 'meticulously conducted.'" (Stossel, 2003) Although Stossel acknowledged on air that I objected to the study BEFORE it was started, he neglected to mention that the expert who his producer agreed to consult with this study had equally strenuous concerns.

It is more than a tad ironic that John Stossel frequently used and even popularized the term "junk science" on 20/20, and I began to wonder if he was engaging in it himself.

Prior to actually conducting this research, the researcher wrote me saying, "Without agreement by all participants on the manner of how things were done, the outcome of the experimentation is indeed virtually meaningless." And yet, he and the 20/20 team continued to conduct this junk science experiment with an outcome that indeed was meaningless.

It is further confusing that neither James Randi or any of his many followers had ever commented about the quality of this study, even though they are known to ridicule virtually any and every study that has had a positive result from a homeopathic medicine. It certainly makes sense for a magician to want to expose frauds and charlatans. And yet, if Randi was truly serious about exposing frauds and charlatans, it is quite curious that he has chosen to go after alternative medicine rather than Big Pharma and Big Medicine when there are many more egregious frauds that occur regularly and with much greater impact on society.

It is inappropriate to say that Randi (or anyone) should not expose any type of fraud, but it is reasonable to ask: is there a "method" to decision to focus on one rather than the other? Even though Randi prides himself on uncovering frauds and hoaxes, he seems to turn a blind eye when he himself may be involved in what could be deemed a fraud or hoax.

As for Randi's $1 million "prize," one can and should look at the rules for this award that specifically give the James Randi Educational Fund (JREF) a clever way to avoid paying anything. Rule #4 asserts, "At any time prior to the Formal Test, the JREF reserves the right to re-negotiate the protocol if issues are discovered that would prevent a fair and unbiased test". As it turns out, a more recent effort to test homeopathy with a protocol agreed upon by Randi and famous Greek homeopath, George Vithoulkas, was delayed so long by Randi that it led to the impossibility to the trial ( In Randi's defense, he does not wish to comment on the past or what he said or agreed to previously.

James Randi is not just a homeopathic and alternative medicine skeptic; he is also a climate change denier. A large number of his followers have had a seriously difficult time accepting his stance, and yet, these followers defend him by asserting that he is not really a "scientist" and cannot be expected to understand these complex issues (Pigliucci, 2009). These followers argue that Randi is competent enough to declare with certainty that many homeopathic and alternative treatments are "bunk," and yet, like cult members, his followers ignore the fact that he is neither a scientist nor a physician and cannot be expected to understand the complex issues of the healing process.

Because it seems that James Randi has serious concerns about fraud and deception in medicine and science, it is remarkably surprising that he has been silent on the considerable fraud regularly committed by conventional medical and "scientific" researchers and by Big Pharma companies. However, Randi is a great magician, and he is a recognized expert at misdirection.

Because it seems that James Randi has serious concerns about fraud and deception in medicine and science, it is remarkably surprising that he has been silent on the considerable fraud regularly committed by conventional medical and "scientific" researchers and by Big Pharma companies. However, Randi is a great magician, and he is a recognized expert at misdirection.

The advantage of Randi's climate change position is that he stands with and by Big Oil and Big Corp. To quote the Church Lady, "How convenient."

James Randi himself seems to have become a victim (or an accomplice) to a deception in his personal life. Randi's long-time companion, Jose Luis Alvarez, was arrested in early September, 2011, for identity thief (Franceschina and Burstein, 2011). This news story carries the additional irony that a master of fraud detection has himself been deceived (my personal condolences and my recognition that any person can be deceived). However, in this case, the man posing as Jose Luis Alvarez had, with Randi's help and advocacy, once pretended to be a "medium" in Australia as a test of the "new age" community there. Randi and "Alvarez" got significant media coverage for this hoax. The old adage that people teach what they themselves need to learn seems to have special meaning here.

Medical Fundamentalism: An Unscientific Attitude

Brian Josephson, PhD, won a Nobel Prize in 1973 and is presently professor emeritus at Cambridge University. Josephson asserts that many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief;" that is, they maintain an unscientific attitude that is embodied by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" (Josephson, 1997).

Josephson wryly responded to the chronic ignorance of homeopathy by its skeptics saying, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."

In the new interview in Science (December 24, 2010), Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, also expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste's results (showing effects from homeopathic doses), but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don't understand it."

Montagnier concluded the interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience, he replied adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

Luther Burbank, the botanist and agricultural scientist, perhaps said it best:

"I have never known a clergyman or a professor who could be more narrow, bigoted, and intolerant than some scientists, or pseudo-scientists... Intolerance is a closed mind. Bigotry is an exaltation of authorities. Narrowness is ignorance unwilling to be taught. And one of the outstanding truths I have learned in my University (of Nature) is that the moment you reach a final conclusion on anything, set that conclusion up as a fact to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken away, and refuse to listen to any new evidence, you have reached an intellectual dead-centre, and nothing will start the engine again short of a charge of dynamite... Ossified knowledge is a dead-weight to the world, and it does not matter in what realm of man's intellectual activities it is found... Any obstinate clinging to outworn doctrines, whether of religion or politics or morality or of science, are equally damning and equally damnable." (Buhner, 2004, p. 21)

If the subject of this article intrigues you, British chemist and homeopath Lionel Milgrom has written an excellent and detailed analysis of the myths that medical fundamentalists spread on homeopathy (and specific individuals who are the worst offenders) (Milgrom, 2010).

Thomas Kuhn, the great physicist and philosopher of science and author of the seminal "Structure of Scientific Revolutions," asserted that "paradigm shifts" seem only outrageous or revolutionary to those people who have invested themselves in the old paradigm...but to all others, the paradigm shift is a natural evolutionary development to virtually everyone else. The deniers of homeopathy are simply "too invested" personally and professionally in the old medical and scientific paradigm, while the rest of us consider the maturation of medicine and science as long overdue.

It has been said that dinosaurs tend to yell and scream the loudest before their fall...and it seems that we are all witnessing evolution at work.


BBC, 2002.

Belon M, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Sainte-Laudy J, Roberfroid M, Wiegant FAC. Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: results of a European multi-centre trial. Inflammation Research 1999; 48: s17-s18.

Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflammation Research 2004; 53:181-8.

Buhner, Stephen Harrod. The Secret Teachings of Plants:
The Intelligence of the Heart in the Direct Perception of Nature. Rochester, VT: Bear & Company, 2004.

Dowie, Mark. Food Fight. The Nation. January 7, 2002.
Dowie, Mark. A Teflon Correspondent. The Nation. January 7, 2002.

Ennis M. Personal Communication, December 9, 2003.

Franceschina, Peter, and Burstein, Ron. Amazing Randi, renowned supernatural investigator, immerses in mystery about partner's alleged ID theft. Sun Sentinel. September 15, 2011.

Josephson, B. D., Letter, New Scientist, November 1, 1997.

Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.

Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

About the author:
America's leading advocate for homeopathic medicine and author of The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (Foreword by Dr. Peter Fisher, Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Learn more about homeopathy and Dana's work at

Dana has authored 9 other books, including Homeopathy A-Z, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD).

How To Take Down A Giant Part 6 (Opinion)

As this movie's plot begins to unfold more and more, Hawaii's Attorney General appears to be pushing back into a corner more and more. I am confident that before long that corner will be so tight that they will have no where to go.

So, I received a reply to my last letter. It was dated November 15th. The relevance of that is that their replies are taking longer and longer. This is what I mean by them getting backed into the proverbial corner. Anyway, the letter goes like this:

Dear Mr. Goldstein:

Our office's October 17, 2011 response to your earlier correspondence stated that "my client, the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, disagrees with your interpretation that the use of Roundup, per se, is a violation of the Hawaii Pesticide Law . . ." Your letter to me dated November 2, 2011 indicates that you presumed that this interpretation was made by the Board of Agriculture Chairperson, Russell Kokubun. Your assumption is incorrect and in fact, I was conveying the interpretation provided by the Department's Pesticides Branch Chief, Tom Matsuda, whom you have apparently spoken with by telephone. Your November 17 letter questions the basis for the Department's interpretation that Roundup use is not, per se, a violation of the Hawaii Pesticide Law. Your disagreement with the Department's position should be discussed with the Department's Pesticide's Branch, and with Tom Matsuda, Branch Chief, in particular. The Department of the Attorney General is the attorney for and provides legal services to our client agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, and provided the information in the original letter merely as a courtesy to you. As noted, the information came from the Department of Agriculture and therefore should be discussed with them directly.

Very truly yours,
Haunani Burns
Deputy Attorney General

It's taken me a few days to stop laughing but my response was as follows:

November 25, 2011

Haunani Burns
Deputy Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hi 96813

Dear Ms. Burns:
Thank you for your last response dated November 15, 2011.

As I understand it, it is your position to refuse, under my request and after citing specific Pesticide State Law, to enforce the State of Hawaii Pesticide statutes with respect to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup Ready weed killer.

You have made it very clear that you have shifted the burden of a decision back to the very agency that is refusing to take action - the Hawaii State department of Agriculture - where an investigation should be initiated in the first place.

The State Head of the Agriculture Department, Russell Kokubun, and his Pesticides Branch Chief, Tom Matsuda, who having received ample scientific data to substantiate the calling of a moratorium on the glyphosate containing Roundup, has no interest in doing so.

Complicating this is the fact that these two individuals have been made aware that Monsanto has known, since the 1980s, and through Monsanto's own research that glyohosate causes cancer, endocrine damage and other debilitating health ramifications.

I find this to be an extreme contradiction to the positions that Mr. Kokubon and Mr. Matsuda hold in light of the fact that when speaking with Mr. Matsuda about Monsanto's Roundup being in direct violation of the state Pesticide Law his comment was, "I will look into the scientific evidence but will take no action as I do what Mr. Kokubun says to do". When I asked Mr. Matsuda if Mr. Kokubun told him to jump off the Aloha Tower would he do it?, the silence was deafening.

This reeks of anti-consumerism and pro-business as Mr. Kokubun has accepted large sums of money from Monsanto and is in a position to stonewall any investigation as his actions clearly indicate.

So, let me make this question to you, our Attorney General, perfectly clear and for the record: are you saying that if Mr. Kokubun tells you and Mr. Matsuda to ignore the current pesticide statutes that would normally require immediate action, specifically section 149A-32.5 of the Hawaii Pesticide Law which states, "Notwithstanding any law, rule or executive order to the contrary, the Chairperson of the Board of Agriculture, in consultation with the advisory committee on pesticides and also with the approval of the Director of Health, shall suspend, cancel or restrict the use of certain pesticides when the usage is determined to have unreasonable adverse effects on the environment", that you will stand down and refuse to enforce the statutes?

If this is the case please explain this unusual circumstance where a government agency, specifically yours, which is tasked with Consumer Protection, decides to overlook the public good in the face of two decades of comprehensive research denouncing the herbicide ingredient glyphosate in favor of the company (Monsanto) that produces it.

I also ask why you felt the need to go to Mr. Kokubun and ask him if Roundup's glyphosate needed to be investigated when he has already stated that although there is considerable evidence that clearly shows damage to humans and all living things, he is unwilling to even look into that evidence?
Please understand that not being a career politician nor an individual that has financial indebtedness to a corporation, like Mr. Kokubun does, I am just trying to gain some direction here and ascertain how far the corruption goes.

The law is clear and right there on the books but it takes someone like the Attorney General, the Health Department, and the Department of Agriculture to enforce it, yet none of these agencies acts or thinks for themselves. They do what Mr. Kokubun tells them to do.

So, what we have is a Governor appointee, Russell Kokubun, making up his own rules to support a corporation that benefits him and his cronies financially!

Unfortunately, after several decades of massive use and continuing this in the future, the birth defects, cancers, and other adverse health atrocities will be rampant world wide, with no one understanding why it is happening to them.

I am wondering if you have small children or perhaps even close friends that do or have children and pets that are loved? Now imagine that every time you and those children or pets go to the city or state parks in bare feet after they have sprayed the grounds with Roundup and it is absorbed directly into their blood stream, that it will manifest years later as a major disease with those affected wondering what they did to inherit this.

If there is no proof here, why did the City Parks Director, after a grass roots movement that caused hundreds of calls from mothers that use Kapiolani Park with their small children, ban the use of Roundup in Kapiolani Park?

In a past letter to me you said that you have a direct responsibility to support a state agency, your client, but the goal of the Attorney General's office states that its function is to "safeguard the rights and interests of the people of Hawaii by being the defender of and the advocate for the people and undertaking appropriate legal and other actions on their behalf". Where is the safeguarding of our rights in your response and who has the priority, the People, being the citizens of Hawaii that pay you
your livelihood, or the Department of Agriculture and Monsanto?

In as much as you are in possession of the reports that I sent you, namely:

*The Huffington Post article, "Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World's Top-Selling Weed Killer, Scientists Say".
*UH professor Hector Valenzuela's report of the suppressed scientific report available at BirthDefectsv5
*Professor Valenzuels"s report on "Alternatives to the use of Roundup Herbicide".
*The article, "Monsanto's Roundup May End Bananas - And they're merely the Canary in the Mine".
*The article, "EU Regulators and Monsanto Exposed for Hiding Glyphosate Toxicity",

maybe you could explain to me how, when a product (Roundup) puts the people at serious health risk, which is confirmed by all of the above, most notably the 52 page report with 359 references compiled by noted and peer-respected research scientists, you, rather than taking the position of protecting the people and rather than adhering to your goal of safeguarding the rights and interests of the people of Hawaii by being the defender and advocate for the people and undertaking appropriate legal and other actions on their behalf, instead defend a corrupt Department of Agriculture and employee whose sole mission is to protect a corporation to which he is financially indebted?

From the failure to allow labeling of GMOs, the spread of GMO seed crops in Hawaii, and the unsafe use of pesticide, Mr. Kokubun can always be depended upon by the GMO, genetically engineered Monsanto group and our other genetically modified Hawaii politicians that have accepted campaign contributions from Monsanto, to protect their interests over those of the people, which Mr. Kokubun allegedly was commissioned to do when he was appointed to his position by Governor Neil Abercrombie.

How foolish of me. Governor Abercrombie is one of our genetically modified politicians as well.

Hawaii's Pesticide Law is quite clear when it states that a moratorium on a pesticide's use can be implemented until a thorough, independent (not from Monsanto's scientists) test can be done to determine that assertion. Yet, despite this and despite the fact that Monsanto has covered up since the 1980s and the government regulators since the 1990s, that these severe health ramifications from exposure to the glyphosate in Roundup exists and is very real.

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, the researchers found that Monsanto's corn is linked to organ damage in rats.

According to the study, which was summarized by Rady Ananda at Food Freedom, "Three varieties of Monsanto's GM corn - Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup herbicide-absorbing NK 603 - were approved for consumption by U.S., European, and several other national food safety authorities".

Monsanto gathered its own crude statistical data after conducting a 90-day study, even though chronic problems can rarely be found after 90 days, and concluded that the corn was safe for consumption. The stamp of approval may have been premature, however.
In the conclusion of the aforementioned IJBS study, researchers wrote:

"Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity.... These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences, for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown".
Monsanto has immediately responded to the study, stating that the research is "based on faulty analytical methods and reasoning and do not call into question the safety findings of these products".

The IJBS study's author, Gilles-Eric Seralini responded to the Monsanto statement on the blog, Food Freedom,

"Our study contradicts Monsanto's conclusions because Monsanto systematically neglects significant health effects in mammals that are different in males and females eating GMOs, or not proportional to the dose. This is a very serious mistake, dramatic for public health. This is the major conclusion revealed by our work, the only reanalysis of Monsanto's crude statistical data".

Once again Ms. Burns, I implore you to go deeper and instigate independent testing on Monsanto's Roundup and institute a statewide moratorium on its usage until it is determined that the alleged health ramifications due to exposure, of cancer, birth defects, embryonic deaths, organ failure, skeletal malformations, craniofacial. mouth and eye deformities, endocrine disruptions, irreversible damage to liver cells, human cell death, DNA damage, and neurotoxic effects, at any level is valid.

I would also suggest that you contact UH Professor Hector Valenzuela, Greenpeace, Earth Justice and any of the other authors of the reports sent to you for confirmation or denial of the truths presented in this letter.

I am attaching the following for you:

*The Scientific American article: "Weed-Whacking Herbicide Proves Deadly to Human Cells". (6 pages)
*The Hawaii Health article: "Court of Appeals Dismisses Monsanto's Appeal of Biotech Beets Case, Preserves Victory for Farmers, Environment". (2 pages)
*The Wild Ones article: "The Roundup Myth". (4 pages)
* The Roundup Specimen Label indicating that contact may result in "Severe Injury or Destruction". 1 page.
* The article: "Monsanto's Toxic Roundup". (5 pages)
*The Natural article: "Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit". (14 pages)

Again, your pledge states: "to safeguard the rights and interests of the people of Hawaii by being the defender of and advocate for the people and undertaking legal and other actions on their behalf". It does not say you are there to support the corrupt policies or politics of a Department of Agriculture employee or employees.

Have a nice day.


Hesh Goldstein

Governor Abercrombie
Senator Daniel Akaka
Senator Dan Inouye
Representative Mazie Hirono
Federal Attorney General Florence T. Nakakuni
Richard Borreca - Star Advertiser
David Shapiro - Star Advertiser
Frank Bridgewater - Star Advertiser
Alan McNarie - Big Island News
Maui News

The situation is so very corrupt that it needs to be exposed. The more people that make contact with them the more they will take it seriously. If everyone that reads this would contact these corrupt politicians maybe it would finally get their attention.

Governor Neil Abercrombie: T (808) 586-0034
F (808) 586-0006

Attorney General: T (808) 586-1500
F (808) 586-1259

To email the Attorney General you must first Google or Yahoo:
Email Hawaii Attorney General.

After doing this a screen will open up allowing you to complete an email.

These people need to know that this issue is known country-wide. Bury them!

Many mahalos and sincere aloha!

About the author:
I have been doing a weekly radio show in Honolulu since 1981 called "Health Talk". In 2007 I was "forced" to get a Masters degree in Nutrition because of all the doctors that would call in asking for my credentials. They do not call in anymore. Going to enables you, among other things, to listen to the shows. I am an activist. In addition to espousing an organic vegan diet for optimum health, I am strongly opposed to GMOs, vaccines, processed foods, MSG, aspartame, fluoridation and everything else that the pimps (Big Pharma, Monsanto and the large food companies) and the hookers (the doctors, the government agencies, the public health officials, and the mainstream media) thrust upon us, the tricks.
After being vaccinated with the DTP vaccine as a child I developed asthma. After taking the organic sulfur crystals (they are harvested from the pine trees in Louisiana) in November of 2008 for 10 days my asthma reversed and has not come back over 4 years later, 18 cases, so far, of autism have been reversed, as has cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, osteoarthritis, joint pain, astigmatism, gum disease, increased sexual activity, heavy metal and radiation elimination, parasite elimination, free radicals elimination, faster athletic recovery time, increased blood circulation, reduced inflammation, resistance to getting the flu, reduction of wrinkles, allergy reduction, reduced PMS and monthly period pain, nausea, migraines and so much more. And it's only possible because of the oxygen it releases that floods the cells of the body. The sulfur, as proven by the University of Southampton in England, enables the body to produce vitamin B12 and the essential amino acids. You can find out more about this incredible nutrient also on my website -
My book, "a Sane Diet For An Insane World", has been published. It can be viewed at

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...