Strict Standards: Only variables should be passed by reference in /home/frene605/public_html/presscore.ca/nbg/fp-includes/core/core.fpdb.class.php on line 302
nb Gazette

The Hague Conventions addressed the rules of law for any armed conflict. The very first Hague law stresses peaceful settlement of disputes, going to great lengths to prevent war through very specific procedures intended to reach a diplomatic solution to any national and/or international disagreement. Arbitration, Committees of Inquiry, neutral mediators and what can be described as a 30-day “time out” are all called upon in order to avoid war. It is only once all of these steps have been exhausted that it is acceptable to declare war. And then, a formal declaration is necessary. All undeclared wars and surprise attacks are illegal under international law.

The right of belligerents (the United States, and NATO countries) to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. (Hague IV). It is illegal to misuse a white flag, a symbol of surrender or truce (Hague IV); it is illegal to kill or injure (including torture) a person who has surrendered; it is illegal to attack a defenseless person or place; it is illegal to attack a building that is being used as a hospital.

National and cultural symbols are protected. Armed forces may not use the enemy’s flag, uniform or insignia, nor the symbol of the Red Cross, for their own purposes. The enemy’s property is not to be taken or destroyed unless it’s critical to military operations. Structures dedicated to art, science and charitable missions, as well as any historic or cultural objects, are off limits, unless, of course, they are being used for military operations.

There is a ban on weapons whose purpose is to maximize pain and suffering: no poisoned weapons; no bullets that do additional damage once inside the body; no chemical or biological weapons.

Chemical and biological warfare is addressed by both the Hague and Geneva laws. Declaration II of The Hague Peace Conference made deadly gas attacks illegal back in 1899. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibited lethal gas and bacterial methods of warfare. The Geneva Convention of 1972 reiterated this prohibition by outlawing the “development, production and stockpiling” of these weapons and insisting on the elimination of any already in existence.

Genocide — the systematic destruction of a particular group of people (the Taliban was the political party of the Afghan people until the US and NATO overthrew them in an undeclared, unproved armed attack) based on nationality or ethnicity — is prohibited by a 1948 treaty dedicated solely to its prevention and the punishment of those who commit it.

Sick, wounded or surrendering lawful combatants must “in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria” (Geneva I). It is illegal to kill, mutilate, torture or perform “biological experiments” on a wounded or sick person or surrendering lawful combatant. It is illegal to treat this person in a “humiliating and degrading” manner. It is illegal to hold this person hostage.

The rules of war is body of customs, practices, usages, conventions, protocols, treaties, laws, and other norms that govern the commencement, conduct, and termination of hostilities between belligerent states or parties.

Frequently violated and sometimes ridiculed, the rules of war have evolved over centuries. They distinguish nations whose armed forces respect some minimal standard of human decency from terrorists, marauders, and other outlaws who use illegal and unrestricted methods of warfare to achieve political, economic, or military objectives.

The point of these rules is not only to distinguish combatants from noncombatants but to distinguish conventional soldiers from hired assassins (CIA), spies (CIA, MI5), and mercenaries (Black Water aka Xe) who circumvent the customs of war in order to accomplish an end that could not be achieved by regular armed forces. Because assassins, spies, and mercenaries do not comply with the rules of war, their captors need not either. Similarly, combatants who attempt to flout the rules of war by disguising themselves in civilian clothing (CIA, MI5, Black Water) or enemy uniforms may be treated as ordinary criminals.

They may also be treated as “enemy” or “unlawful” combatants, a kind of purgatory between civilian status and prisoner-of-war-status. In response to the September 11th attacks in 2001, the United States launched a war of terrorism, which included a specific military operation (an undeclared war and unprovoked armed attack) against the Taliban government in Afghanistan and members of the CIA created al Qaeda terrorist organization conducting terrorist operations for the United States from there. During this ongoing illegal conflict, the U.S. and NATO military forces have captured thousands of Taliban and resistance fighters (Ronald Regan called them freedom fighters), hundreds of whom were allegedly not complying with the rules of war, failing to wear uniforms with insignia clearly displayed, failing to carry their weapons openly, and failing to organize themselves in units subject to a hierarchical chain of command.

The North Atlantic Treaty
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty

The United States White House and NATO officials have argued that members of the Afghan freedom fighters, the Taliban, and other alleged terrorists do not qualify as lawful “enemy combatants” and therefore are not accorded rights under the Geneva Conventions, the internationally accepted rules on conduct during wartime that govern the treatment of detainees, among other things. The US government and NATO say terrorists do not enjoy legal protections because they do not follow any rules of war: They fight for no nation-state (the Taliban and other Afghan resistance groups are fighting to liberate their country, Afghanistan, from the armed occupation by US and NATO forces), they target innocents (the US and NATO target and attacks civilians on a daily bases both on the ground and with unmanned armed drones), they wear no insignia (US, Canada and NATO forces wear no clearly visible insignia whatsoever while on patrol or during combat - in direct violation of the rules of law - failing to wear uniforms with insignia clearly displayed) , and they disguise themselves as civilians (the US Black Water mercenaries, the CIA and MI5 all wear civilian clothing). The entire NATO forces do not qualify as lawful “combatants” and therefore are not accorded rights under the Geneva Convention. International law and NATO’s own treaty declares NATO as the enemy and “unlawful” combatants in Afghanistan.

cia-dart.jpg
In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack. This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark. Once in the body the poison would melt and be absorbed into the blood and cause a heart attack! The poison was developed to be undetectable by modern autopsy procedures.

Can you give a person cancer? If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings! In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells; 13 of them died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of the details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Fort Detrick Maryland (origin of the HIV/AIDS virus, the Avian Flu virus and the Swine Flu / A-H1N1 virus), Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

The answer to the question - Can you give a person cancer - is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.

Is death by heart attack, burst aneurysm, of cerebral hemorrhage a “natural cause”? Not if government agencies have found a way to influence your heart rate, blood pressure, or vascular dilatation. Neurological research has found that the brain has specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack. In this way, high profile leaders of political parties who are prone to heart attacks can be killed off before they cause any trouble. Jack Ruby died of cancer a few weeks after his conviction for murder had been overruled in appeals court and he was ordered to stand trial outside of Dallas — thus allowing him to speak freely if he so desired. There was little hesitancy in Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald in order to prevent him from talking, so there is no reason to suspect that any more consideration would have been shown Jack Ruby if he had posed a threat to people in the US government who had conspired to murder the president of the United States - John F Kennedy.

Matt Simmons, an oil industry expert, was assassinated for turning whistleblower over the Obama administration coverup of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Investment banker Matt Simmons, who died suddenly, was an energy industry insider and presidential adviser whose profile soared when he wrote that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil and world production is peaking. Simmons, 67, died at his vacation home in Maine. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning “with heart disease as a contributing factor.”

His 2005 best-selling book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, brought him a wider audience. The book argued that Saudi Arabia vastly overstated the size of its oil reserves and that the world was on the verge of a severe oil shortage as the largest oil fields become depleted. This revelation is backed up by Iran. Iran knows the Middle East oil supply is quickly drying up and for that reason it is now focusing on building nuclear reactors. Once the oil runs out Iran will be the only country in the Middle East that will be energy self-sufficient. All of the other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia will become Third World impoverished states.

Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was also assassinated. He was found dead in the detention centre at The Hague tribunal. Mr Milosevic faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged central role in the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during the 1990s. He also faced genocide charges over the 1992-95 Bosnia war, in which 100,000 people died.

Milosevic wrote a letter one day before his death claiming he was being poisoned to death in jail. An autopsy verified his claim as it showed that Milosevic’s body contained a drug that rendered his usual medication for high blood pressure and his heart condition ineffective, causing the heart attack that led to his death.

Former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson told reporters that he saw documents in 1992 that discussed assassinating Milosevic by means of a staged car accident, where the driver would be blinded by a flash of light and remote controlled brake failure enacted to cause the crash. This exact same technique was utilized for real in the murder of Princess Diana.

If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO. Why NATO? Because, though the ICTY (or ‘Hague Tribunal’) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO. NATO appointed the prosecutors, and the judges who ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO. It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO. NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him.

In March 2002, Milosevic presented the NATO controlled Hague tribunal with FBI documents proving that both the United States government and NATO provided financial and military support for Al-Qaeda to aid the Kosovo Liberation Army in its war against Serbia. This didn’t go down too well at the Pentagon and the White House, who at the time were trying to sell a war on terror and gearing up to justify invading Iraq.

During Milosevic’s trial for war crimes NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak. Evidence presented in the court showed that NATO’s claim was a hoax. This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999 (the carpet bombing were done by the United States Air Force -authorized by then president Bill and Hillary Clinton). Then NATO claimed that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians. However, NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces. The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up the genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while Bill Clinton was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But the Hague tribunal showed these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well.

Milosevic made several speeches in which he discussed how a group of shadowy internationalists had caused the chaos in the Balkans because it was the next step on the road to a “new world order.”

During a February 2000 Serbian Congressional speech, Milosevic stated, “Small Serbia and people in it have demonstrated that resistance is possible. Applied at a broader level, it was organized primarily as a moral and political rebellion against tyranny, hegemony, monopolism, generating hatred, fear and new forms of violence and revenge against champions of freedom among nations and people, such a resistance would stop the escalation of modern time inquisition. Uranium bombs, computer manipulations, drug-addicted young assassins and bribed of blackmailed domestic thugs, promoted to the allies of the new world order, these are the instruments of inquisition which have surpassed, in their cruelty and cynicism, all previous forms of revengeful violence committed against the mankind in the past.”

Evidence linking Milosevic to genocides like Srebrenica, in which 7,000 Muslims died, was proven to be fraudulent. In fact, Srebrenica was a ‘UN safe zone’, yet just like Rwanda, UN peacekeepers deliberately withdrew and allowed the massacre to unfold, then blamed Milosevic. Milosevic’s exposure of UN involvement in the Srebrenica massacre was another reason why tribunal transcripts were heavily edited and censored by NATO, and another contributing factor for NATO to murder him while he was in their custody.

NATO’s Hague Tribunal was clearly a kangaroo court whose sole purpose was to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic - to prevent his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody would begin to look into the mountain of evidence that showed that it was NATO leaders (particularly US president Bill Clinton) who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Yugoslavia.

So many people have been done in by cancer at a convenient time in history that it is now time to ask the question “who is assassinating people by giving their target cancer or inducing a massive heart attack”? Who ordered the hits and why?

Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd. Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.

Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally. Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.

A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing. The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target. The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes. A former CIA agent disclosed that the darts were made of a frozen form of the liquid poison. She disclosed that the dart would melt within the target and would only leave a very tiny red dot at the entry point - the same type of small entrance wound that was found during the autopsy of John F Kennedy.

For over 50 years assassinations have been carried out so skillfully as to leave the impression that the victims died from natural causes. Details of some of the techniques used to achieve this were brought to light in 1961 when professional KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinskiy defected to the West and revealed that he had successfully performed two such missions. In 1957 he killed Ukrainian emigr writer Lev Rebet in Munich with a poison vapor gun which left the victim dead of an apparent heart attack. In 1959, the same type of weapon was used on Ukrainian emigr leader Stepan Bandera, although Bandera’s death was never fully accepted as having been from natural causes.

Among the witnesses, important people and conspirators who might have been eliminated by induced heart attack and cancer are: Jack Rudy (died of a stroke due to an undiagnosed form of aggressive cancer, just weeks after he agreed to testify before Congress about the JFK assassination), Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover, Earlene Roberts (Oswald’s land-lady), Marlyn Monroe, Slobodan Milosevic, Kenneth Lay (former CEO of ENRON - the largest political campaign contributor of Gorge W Bush and Dick Cheney), Matt Simmons, Mark Pittman (a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings. Pittman foght to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny), Elizabeth Edwards (suddenly diagnosed with cancer while her husband was campaigning against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States. During a campaign speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2007, Edwards called the War on Terrorism a slogan that was created for political reasons and that it wasn’t a plan to make the United States safe. He went further to compare it to a bumper sticker and that it had damaged the US’s alliances and standing in the world.), … enter here the names of every politically outspoken person, whistle blower or witness who died unexpectedly of a heart attack or who quickly died of an incurable cancer

mushroom_cloud.jpg
At the bombs hypocenter or ground zero of a thermonuclear explosion a temperature is generated of 500 million degrees Fahrenheit. Everything vaporizes instantly at the center of one of these blasts. Underground nuclear detonations of low depth produces a mushroom cloud and a base surge ( a base surge is a cloud which rolls out from the bottom of the column produced by a subsurface burst of a nuclear weapon.), both seen here in the above photo taken on September 11, 2001.

One the greatest tragedies resulting from the Sept 11, 2001 attack on the WTC towers in New York City is the plight of the heroic rescue workers who saved thousands of lives on that day. A study published in April of 2010 found that about 20% of the 14,000 responders have permanent lung damage. A large number of those 9/11 first responders has contracted blood cancers at an unusually young age, and top doctors suspect the disease was triggered by an unprecedented “synergistic mix” of toxins at the World Trade Center site. These growth of these cancers among Ground Zero workers, and others, are consistent with exposure to radiation contamination.

The WTC Medical Monitoring Program is now studying a group of Ground Zero workers, including cops, construction workers and volunteers, suffering from cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma and multiple myeloma. The blame has been placed on the ‘toxic dust’ clouds which engulfed the area surrounding the towers. While there is little question that particulate matter such as pulverized concrete impacted the health of those who were standing in the blast radius of the falling towers, the huge number of responders who contracted illnesses including rare cancer types is more akin to those who survived the nuclear bomb detonations in Nagasaki and Hiroshima Japan.

How does this comparison make any sense? The 9/11 Commission Report officially stated that the city of New York was hit with planes, not a nuclear missile. As it turns out there is a dirty little secret omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. The World Trade Center Towers were brought down by explosions containing a large quantity of uranium - from underground nuclear detonations. Experts have always said that the towers were intentionally collapsed by controlled demolitions. Structural engineers from around the World have said that it is impossible to cause a collapse of a skyscraper from a fire caused by an aircraft impact. There have been several major high rise fires throughout the World before 9/11 and since then and none have caused a collapse of the structure. The engineers have even used the Empire State building catastrophe as proof of their claim.

On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, a U.S. Army B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane’s high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor. The plane exploded within the building. One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall’s windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building. The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Even though the B-25 bomber had impacted the building at a high rate of speed and the high octane fuel exploded and inflamed 3 floors of the inside of the building the structural integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected.

More recently, on Feb. 12, 2005 in Madrid, the Windsor Tower burned for over 20 hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors.

These known facts explains a great number of anomalies present in the analysis of how the World Trade Center Towers fell. One of the common questions that has puzzled many independent observers was how jet fuel, which burns in open air at about 300 deg C, was able to compromise the integrity of steel, which melts at 1,000 deg C. The presence of depleted uranium at Ground Zero settles this conundrum.

According to Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001, the fires raged at ground zero ‘for a hundred days’ after the towers were hit. The presence of a high-energy compound such as uranium helps explain how this was sustained long after the jet fuel would have been gone and how the health of so many 9/11 first responders was devastated.

Joe_one.jpg
On August 29, 1949, the USSR detonated its first nuclear fission bomb, dubbed “Joe-1” by the U.S. It produced the same type of mushroom cloud and a base surge as witnessed by billions of people around the World on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Sedan.jpg
Storax Sedan was a shallow underground nuclear test conducted in Area 10 of Yucca Flat at the Nevada National Security Site on July 6, 1962 as part of Operation Plowshare, a program to investigate the use of nuclear weapons for mining, cratering, and other civilian purposes. The 100 kiloton Sedan nuclear bomb was buried at a depth of 635 feet. The detonation produced a mushroom cloud and base surge - typical of shallow-buried nuclear explosions. The cloud is highly contaminated with radioactive dust particles and produces an intense local fallout.

Experts, both military and civil engineers, have concluded that the only plausible explanation for what happened to the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001 is that a small underground nuclear detonation was involved in the collapse of the WTC towers. The over ten million degrees of heat created by a thermonuclear detonation sublimated all water within the concrete of the structure in a moment. Water explodes extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and totally pulverizes the concrete. Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up immediately over its melting point 1585 C (approx. 2890 F) and above its boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 F). Super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure wave, are sublimated. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding heat as quickly as possible. Vertical bursts are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges which are used horizontally but on the morning of September 11, 2001 we saw exactly that - a nuclear detonation.

chemo.jpg
Cancer doesn’t cause severe nausea and vomiting, chemotherapy causes that. Cancer doesn’t cause complete hair loss, chemotherapy causes that. Cancer doesn’t cause severe diarrhea or constipation and mouth sores, chemotherapy causes those side effects. Chemotherapy has been proven to cause all of these side effects and have many longer-term consequences. Chemotherapy can permanently affect the heart, lungs, reproductive organs, nerves or other parts of the body. Although chemotherapy is widely used to treat (not kill or cure) cancer cells it most often affects parts of your body not directly affected by the cancer itself. This undesired result is referred to as a complication of treatment, or a side effect of the treatment. Millions of people don’t die of cancer they die as a result of a complication of treatment, or side effect(s) of the treatment.

Doctors have been urged to be more cautious in offering cancer treatment to terminally-ill patients as chemotherapy often does more harm than good. “If cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. …The use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how ineffective and dangerous it can be.” - Ralph W. Moss, author, The Cancer Industry

The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in ten patients who received chemotherapy towards the end of life suffered potentially fatal effects from the drugs, and treatment was “inappropriate” in nearly a fifth of cases. In a study of more than 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, chemotherapy caused or hastened death in 27 per cent of cases, the inquiry found.

Former chemotherapy patient Anne explains in the book, The Cancer Prevention Diet: “My mind rebelled at the thought of another six months of that poison. On several occasions, the doctor couldn’t perform chemotherapy treatments on me because my white blood cell count was dangerously low. I promised my body I would not undergo any further chemotherapy treatments.”

Anne’s account reflects the feelings of all too many cancer patients who have suffered through months of often debilitating chemotherapy. The side effects that chemotherapy patients feel and others see – the extreme nausea and vomiting, the hair loss, the weight loss – are indicative of the intense havoc that chemotherapy is causing within the body. According to the Life Extension Foundation, chemotherapy drugs are “cytotoxic,” meaning that “they kill cells that are extremely active.” Cancer cells are, of course, extremely active. However, so are the cells of the hair and the immune system, for example, which accounts for chemotherapy’s destructive side effects.

As if these side effects are not enough, cancer therapy commonly includes surgery and radiation, both of which have their own dangers and side effects. As Professor Null writes in his Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing, “The mainstream medical establishment often prescribes mastectomy, radiation and chemotherapy to treat cancer, an approach that has been described as a slash-and-burn strategy.” The treatment for breast cancer is unfortunately often the general rule among cancer treatment – cut off the affected organ, poison the body with chemotherapy and then harm the body even more with radiation.

In Get Healthy Now, Professor Null describes one woman’s experience with mainstream medicine’s approach to breast cancer treatment: “Three days later, she had her breast lopped off. That was followed up with lots of chemotherapy. Her hair fell out and she vomited 24 hours a day. She couldn’t keep any food down. Then they did radiation and her skin burnt up and two of her ribs broke.” He concludes, “Most people don’t know how dangerous radiation is. I had seen enough. I wouldn’t touch any of that medicine with a 10-foot pole.” Surgical removal of the cancerous body part also has its own aftereffects, of course, requiring not only the normal recovery after any surgery, but also coping with the psychological effects of having a body part removed.

As cancer patients suffer from the side effects of chemotherapy and other methods of mainstream cancer treatment, the fact remains that according to many medical practitioners, these treatments are unnecessary and sometimes do more harm than good. In response to chemotherapy’s many side effects, Dr. Atkins says in Burton Goldberg’s Alternative Medicine, “Only in situations in which chemotherapy is proven to be effective and curative would I recommend it. In general, this might be testicular cancer.”

Many people also think that surgery can sometimes do more harm than good: Biopsy, for example, may in fact spread cancer cells, according to Professor Null. Furthermore, the most extreme example of unnecessary cancer therapy – treatment for false positive cancer diagnoses – is more common than we’d like to believe, according to Critical Condition authors Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele.

One of the major drawbacks of chemotherapy treatment for cancer is that it not only attacks cancer cells, but other fast-growing, healthy cells, including those found in the bone marrow and other parts of the immune system. So being so destructive why continue to use these types of treatments? The answer is “Money”.

There is big money in cancer research and treatment. The survival of the cancer research society depends on no cure being found against cancer. They rely on the $billion income from the government in the form of research grants and from the $billions in donations from the public. Society is so desperate for a cure that they unwittingly hand over $billions to a group of people who have no intention of ever finding a cure. What reason would they have to simply take the money and not find a cure? If there was a cure found, or at least declared found, every money hungry research lab around the World would close down. If there was a cure for cancer the radiology wing of every hospital around the World would close down. If there was a cure pharmaceutical companies (the modern day dope dealers) would be put out of business.

Since 1946 it is said that the American Cancer Society has invested over $2 billion in research trying to find a cure. Cancer spending in 1990 was $27 billion. In 2008, this figure increased over 3 times to a whopping $90 billion. This massive increase in spending is caused by the rapidly increasing costs of new drugs (drugs manufactured for prolonged treatment only - not a cure), robotic surgeries and radiation procedures (life threatening treatment - not a cure), and the increasing number of people being diagnosed with an fraudulently declared incurable cancer.

$90 billion is being wasted on research and treatment because cancer has many cures - all natural, all safe, all available for as little as a few dollars, and all have been proven time and again. If, as many people believe, mainstream cancer treatment is ineffective and always harmful to the body as a whole, then what is the alternative? Alternative cancer cures are presented and validated every day. Articles are published every day declaring many safe and effective alternative cancer treatments and cures. Articles with headlines like:

Science proves that garlic kills cancer cells,
Curry Powder Ingredient Kills Cancer Cells,
In Tests, Vitamin D Shrinks Breast Cancer Cells - ABC News,
Curry spice ‘kills cancer cells‘ - BBC,
How spicy foods can kill cancers - BBC,
Substance in breast milk kills cancer cells, study suggests,
Nano-protein pair kill cancer cells,
Grape extract kills cancer cells - BBC,
Scientists use salmonella bug to kill cancer cells - Reuters,
Human cells secrete protein that kills cancer cells: Study,
Vitamin C confirmed to kill cancer cells. ….

What are all these articles saying? They are stating that cancer can easily be beaten. They are stating the obvious fact that there are many cures for cancer - all of them natural. These articles all suggest and then verify that cancer cells are very weak, far weaker than healthy cells. It is very easy to kill cancer cells if you can create the right environment. Research scientists have known for decades that your body is itself a cancer cell killer. A naturally produced protein found in the human body is able to zero in on and kill cancer cells, without the use of chemotherapy drugs. The health care industry knows this. The pharmaceutical companies knows this. Even your government knows this. The only people who don’t know this is you. If you did, you or someone you know wouldn’t be dying of cancer.

breast_feeding.jpg
Breast feeding is the best and most nutritious diet for infants. Breast milk builds a strong immune system that makes a child strong enough to resist different health diseases like polio, whooping cough etc. Most of the child deaths occurring today are due to the lack of proper breast feeding and these are the facts given by the World Health Organization. Breast milk is raw milk. Breast milk hasn’t been pasteurized. Raw cows milk is the breast milk provided to us by mother nature. Every mammal on Earth produces raw milk for the sustenance of their young offspring. Drinking raw milk is instinctual. Drinking raw milk is natural. Drinking pasteurized milk and eating pasteurized food is unnatural and life-threatening.

Although not many people know it, pasteurizing milk destroys essential nutrients in the milk. How?

Pasteurizing milk destroys beneficial bacteria along with the bad ones and destroys enzymes essential for nutrient absorption. Pasteurizing milk destroys all its phosphatase; this is essential for the absorption of calcium, and calcium works with Vitamin D, not only available through sunshine but is an essential nutrient in raw cream. Nature packaged a superb design for human sustenance in milk as it comes from the cow with all original essential nutrients — so long as it is not pasteurized. Heating any raw food destroys the active enzymes, so lipase (an enzyme unique to milk and needed to complete digestion of fats) is blasted along with many other essential nutrients that pasteurization destroys. The sale of raw milk (milk that hasn’t been pasteurized) is actually outlawed in some states. Does it make sense to ban the sale of RAW MILK but other products known to cause death are still legal? Cigarettes and alcohol have killed millions yet the sale of cigarettes and alcohol has not been banned. A handful of people became mildly sick from drinking milk that wasn’t properly handled by a milk processing plant and as a result all raw milk sale is now banned.

Pasteurized milk is like synthetic vitamins - has no nutritional value. So why drink it at all? A synthetic form of Vitamin D is added to pasteurized milk to try and give it a nutritional value. They added 40 IU of synthetic vitamin D to the dead milk. The recommended daily vitamin D intake levels set for adults age 50 and over is 400 IU. That would mean, in order to get the recommended amount of vitamin D an adult would have to consume 10 glasses of pasteurized milk each and every day. That many glasses would cause a very severe case of the runs (diarrhea) - each and every day. Wait just a minute. That was the reason why the FDA forced all milk producers to pasteurize their milk in the first place or be banned from selling their milk. They stated that the E. coli - short for Escherichia coli - a bacteria (germ) in raw milk caused severe cramps and diarrhea and to prevent this they ordered all raw milk to be pasteurized.

When cows are stored in sick environments, they become sick and produce sick milk requiring pasteurization so it won’t kill you. Modern factory farming reduces dairy cattle to barely living milk-producing sacs. They are pain-wracked, live in fear, are starved for relationships with their fellows, pumped full of antibiotics and other system-changing drugs. Obviously, they can produce only sick milk.

Because milk from factory-raised sick cows is sick, it’s pasteurized so it won’t kill you—at least, not quickly. It will, though, kill you slowly - from malnutrition and disease and illnesses caused by malnutrition.

Natural raw milk is a living food. It contains enzymes, which help convert it to other healthy foods, like cheese. Instead of going rancid like pasteurized milk, raw milk sours, providing us with a huge range of delicacies, like French cheeses, Dutch cheeses, British cheeses, Wisconsin cheeses, yogurt, and kefir.

Yes, raw milk is full of bacteria. But it is full good bacteria, bacteria that is essential for nutrient absorption. Think about, what is it about yogurt that’s so good for you? It’s probiotics, which is a cute word meaning good bacteria. Did you know that pasteurized milk also contains loads of bacteria? The difference is that it’s all dead, so none of the good bacteria is there for you. What you’re eating in pasteurized milk and yogurt made from pasteurized milk are millions of bodies of dead bacteria, both good and bad. Pasteurization doesn’t filter or get rid of bacteria it kills it. Pasteurization doesn’t filter out the dead bacteria either. So the next time you drink a glass of pasteurized milk think about what you are eating - a glass full of dead matter. You might as well as gather up all of the dead bugs and flies that are in your home, put them in a glass and drink it. Bon Appetit.