The Tonka Report

Real News In A Changing World

Archive for the ‘Bio-Engineering’ Category

The Royal Society: Halt Economic Growth And Institute “Rationing”

with one comment

November 29, 2010: Steve Watson / Prisonplanet.com  – November 29, 2010

Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers to coincide with the latest round of UN climate talks, in which influential scientists suggest that politicians should force the population of the developed world to adhere to a system of rationing in order to stave off rising global temperatures. The papers suggest that 1930s and 40s style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph Reports.

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” one Royal Society affiliated professor

Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, added that in his view, economic growth in the developed world should be completely halted within the next two decades if the planet is to avoid mass upheaval in the form of rising sea levels, floods, droughts and mass migration. “I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”

Ironically, Anderson’s point here reveals a fundamental flaw in the theory of anthropogenic global warming, namely that CO2 emissions have increased, yet temperature rise is slowing. By all accounts, the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped just over a decade ago.

Even the Royal Society itself was forced to admit this fact in a recently published guide, titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’ which was altered following multiple complaints from 43 of the Royal Society’s own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist climate change rhetoric.

The Met office concurs that global warming has been slowing for some time, and the admission was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.

It is hardly surprising to see the Royal Society still pushing a de-industrialization agenda, however, given it’s history and cadre of members and patrons. The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW. It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement “The debate on climate change is over.”

When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”

The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.

It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050. Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.

The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.

This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.

One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.

Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.

Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt is also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society “Objective” Global Population Study.

Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population? Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.

Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act. Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.

Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich. Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.

Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.

Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions.

Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”. Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.

It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.

Given the standing of the Royal Society and its ability to influence policy making on an international scale, it is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Global Warming Or Global Governance?

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: These bastards are like cockroaches that just keep coming back! – SJH 

Telegraph – Cancun Climate Change Conference: Scientists Call For Rationing

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

Link to original article below…

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ultra-elitist-environmental-group-halt-economic-growth-institute-rationing.html

History Of Codex Alimentarius: Nazi Connections Run Deep Within

leave a comment »

November 18, 2010: Brandon Turbeville / Activist Post – November 17, 2010

Excerpt: Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom – By Brandon Turbeville

Contrary to popular belief Codex Alimentarius is neither a law nor a policy.  It is in fact a functioning body, a Commission, created by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the World Health Organization under the direction of the United Nations. The confusion in this regard is largely due to statements made by many critics referring to the “implementation” of Codex Alimentarius as if it were legislation waiting to come into effect. A more accurate phrase would be the “implementation of Codex Alimentarius guidelines,” as it would more adequately describe the situation.

Codex is merely another tool in the chest of an elite group of individuals whose goal is to create a one world government in which they wield complete control. Power over the food supply is essential in order to achieve this. As will be discussed later, Codex Alimentarius will be “implemented” whenever guidelines are established and national governments begin to arrange their domestic laws in accordance with the standards set by the organization.

The existence of Codex Alimentarius as a policy-making body has roots going back over a hundred years. The name itself, Codex Alimentarius, is Latin for “food code”[1]  and directly descended from the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus, a set of standards and descriptions of a variety of foods in the Austria-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911.[2] This set of standards was the brainchild of both the food industry and academia and was used by the courts in order to determine food identity in a legal fashion.

Even as far back as 1897, nations were being pushed toward harmonization of national laws into an international set of standards that would reduce the “barriers to trade” created by differences in national laws.[3] As the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus gained steam in its localized area, the idea of having a single set of standards for all of Europe began to pick up steam as well. From 1954-1958, Austria successfully pursued the creation of the Codex Alimentarius Europaeus (the European Codex Alimentarius). Almost immediately the UN directed FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) sprang into action when the FAO Regional Conference for Europe expressed the desire for a global international set of standards for food. The FAO Regional Conference then sent a proposal up the chain of command to the FAO itself with the suggestion to create a joint FAO/WHO programme dealing with food standards.

The very next year, the Codex Alimentarius Europeaus adopted a resolution that its work on food standards be taken over by the FAO. In 1961, it was decided by the WHO, Codex Alimentarius Europaeus, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the FAO Conference to create an international food standards programme known as the Codex Alimentarius.[4]  In 1963, as a result of the resolutions passed by these organizations two years earlier, Codex Alimentarius was officially created.[5]

Although created under the auspices of the FAO and the WHO, there is some controversy regarding individuals who may or may not have participated in the establishment of Codex. Many anti-Codex organizations have asserted that Nazi war criminals, Fritz Ter Meer[6] and Hermann Schmitz[7] in particular, were principal architects of the organization. Because many of these claims are made with only indirect evidence, or no evidence at all, one might be tempted to disregard them at first glance. However, as the allegations gain more and more adherents, Codex has attempted to refute them. In its Frequently Asked Questions section, Codex answers the question, “Is it true that Codex was created by a former war criminal to control the world food supply?”[8]  It then goes on to answer the charges by stating:

“No. It is a false claim. You just need to type the words “Codex Alimentarius” in any search engine and you will find lots of these rumors about Codex. Usually the people spreading them will give no proof but will ask you to send donations or to sign petitions against Codex. 

“Truthful information about Codex is found on the Internet – there is nothing to hide from our side – we are a public institution working in public for the public – we are happy if people want to know more about our work and ask questions. There is an official Codex Contact Point in each member country who will be pleased to answer your questions on Codex.”[9]

But, as one can see from the statement above, Codex’s response does very little to answer this question beyond simply disagreeing with it. While it is true that many individuals who make this claim provide little evidence for it, the presentation of the information does not necessarily negate its truthfulness. In fact, Codex offers its own website as a source for accurate information about the organization; yet, beyond the FAQ section, there is nothing to be found that is relevant to the “war criminal” allegations. Furthermore, the codexalimentarius.net website is virtually indecipherable, almost to the point of being completely useless. In the end, this response raises more questions than it answers. This is because Codex, if it wanted, could put these rumors to rest by simply posting a list of the individuals and organizations that funded or played an integral role in its creation. However, it does nothing of the sort. Beyond mentioning the FAO and the WHO, we are completely unaware of who or how many other individuals and organizations participated in the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

The “war criminal” claims center around the chemical conglomerate known as I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben was made up of several German chemical firms including, BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and AGFA,[10] that merged together. It was essentially the manufacturing wing of the Third Reich and was the engine behind the Nazi war machine. The company provided the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline used for the military conquest and murder of millions. It also manufactured the now infamous Zyklon-B gas used in the gas chambers.  Not only that, but it was influential in the conducting of experiments on concentration camp victims. Indeed, camp victims were often purchased outright at the behest of the company for the express purposes of testing by several different branches of the company, particularly Bayer and Hoechst.

Without I.G. Farben, the German wars simply could not have been sustained. During the Nuremberg war trials, the tribunal convicted 24 board members and executives of the company and dissolved it into several different daughter companies. Namely, BASF, Hoechst (later to be known as Aventis), and Bayer. By 1951, virtually all 24 of these executives were released, including Fritz Ter Meer and Hermann Schmitz. Ter Meer had been a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1945 and also a member of the working committee and the technical committee as well as a director of the infamous Section II. He was also the ambassador to Italy given full power by the Reich Minister for armaments and war production and was the industrialist most responsible for Auschwitz. Schmitz was also a member of the I.G. Farben executive committee from 1926-1935, and was chairman of the board and “head of finances” from 1935-1945. He was also head of military economics and a member of the Nazi party. Both men were found guilty by the Nuremberg war tribunal in 1948, yet Schmitz was released in 1950 and Ter Meer in 1952.[11]

After all this, Schmitz was appointed board member of the German bank of Berlin West in 1952 and in 1956, the honorary chairman of the board of Rheinish steel plants. Ter Meer, however, was even more successful. Upon his release, he was appointed board member of Bayer in 1955 and, in 1956 was appointed chairman. In the years following, he would take on many additional roles such as chairman of the board of Theodore Goldschmidt AG, deputy chairman of the board of Commerzbank and Bank-Association AG, as well as a board member of the Waggonfabrik Uerdingen, Duesseldorger Waggonfabrik AG, the bank association of West Germany, and United Industrial Enterprises AG.[12] These are documented connections for both of these men. Indeed, Ter Meer’s’ connections to the pharmaceutical firm Bayer earned him a foundation named in his honor, the Fritz Ter-Meer Foundation.[13] Through all of this however, this writer could not confirm that either Ter Meer or Schmitz had direct connections to the creation of Codex Alimentarius.

However, Codex does nothing to dispel the allegations besides simply disagreeing with them and the connections are not at all implausible. Codex is very secretive about its beginnings, as evidenced on its website where it only states that it was created at the behest of the FAO and the WHO. It is highly unlikely that such an organization would be created without the assistance, input, and even funding of privately owned international corporations. Thanks to both the anti-Codex community and Codex Alimentarius itself, there is no evidence (again at least to this author) that documents which individuals or corporations were involved in its establishment. However, there are other ties that lend more credence to the belief that war criminals played a role in the creation of Codex.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He is also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom

Codex Alimentarius: Lecture by Ian R. Crane – Part 1 of 9

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: I urge you all to watch the remaining 8 parts of this fascinating lecture in order to further recognize the spider of tyranny spinning its web in the shadows of secrecy… – SJH

Part 2… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7iKLXUgjlQ&feature=related

Part 3… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij8aF70S-nI&feature=related

Part 4… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsDiNywnnNE&feature=related

Part 5… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0ofAvvr9LY&feature=related

Part 6… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiuvIwpm6ec&feature=related

Part 7… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snT2LdzE5uU&feature=related

Part 8… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwrr5kKC9Nc&feature=related

Part 9… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEuRiG9b-5M&feature=related

Robert Verkerk – Codex Alimentarius

Link to original article with references below…

http://www.activistpost.com/2010/11/history-of-health-tyranny-codex.html

Global Warming And “Climate Change” No Longer Frighten Europe

with 3 comments

November 13, 2010: Hans Labohm / The Washington Times – November 5, 2010

The fight against the delusion of dangerous man-made global warming remains an uphill struggle. For decades, the climate debate has been obfuscated by cherry-picking, spin-doctoring and scaremongering by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climate alarmists, including the environmental movement and mainstream media. Their massive campaign to overstate the threat of man-made warming has left its imprint on public opinion. But the tide seems to be turning.

The Climate Conference fiasco in Copenhagen, the Climategate scandal and stabilization of worldwide temperatures since 1995 have given rise to growing doubts about the putative threat of “dangerous global warming” or “global climate disruption.” Indeed, even Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and one of the main players in Climategate, now acknowledges that there has been no measurable warming since 1995 despite steadily rising atmospheric carbon dioxide.

People are paying attention, and opinion polls in many countries show a dramatic fall in the ranking of climate change among people’s major concerns. People also are beginning to understand that major rain- and snowstorms, hurricanes and other weather extremes are caused by solar-driven changes in global jet streams and warm-cold fronts, not by CO2, and that claims about recent years being the “warmest ever” are based on false or falsified temperature data.

In various parts of the world, the climate debate displays different features. The U.S. and other parts of the non-European Anglo-Saxon world feature highly polarized and politicized debates along the left-versus-right divide. In Europe, all major political parties are still toeing the “official” IPCC line. In both arenas, with a few notable exceptions, skeptical views – even from well-known scientists with impeccable credentials – tend to be ignored and/or actively suppressed by governments, academia and the media.

Nevertheless, skepticism about man-made climate disasters is gradually gaining ground.

In my own country, the Netherlands, for instance, that skepticism even has received some official recognition, thus dissolving the information monopoly of climate alarmists. The Lower House’s Standing Committee on Environment recently organized a one-day hearing at which both climate-chaos adherents and disaster skeptics could freely discuss their different views before key parliamentarians who decide climate policy.

This hearing was followed by a special seminar organized by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, using the same format but focusing on scientific topics. The academy will soon publish a report about this seminar.

Europe often brags about its emission-trading system (ETS), regarding itself as the vanguard of an international climate policy. In the European view, the Copenhagen climate summit should have produced a worldwide extension and sharpening of its ETS. But the vast majority of countries in the world refused to follow Europe’s example, so the meeting turned into a fiasco. Its follow-up in Cancun, Mexico, at year’s end surely will produce a similar result. For good reason.

Contrary to official claims, Europe’s experience with ETS is dismal. The system is expensive and prone to massive fraud. More important, it serves no useful purpose.

The European Environmental Agency tracks Europe’s performance regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. Its latest report states: “The EU’s greenhouse gas inventory report … shows that emissions have not only continued their downward trend in 2008, but have also picked up pace. The EU-27’s emissions stood 11.3 percent below their 1990 levels, while EU-15 achieved a reduction of 6.9 percent compared to Kyoto base-year levels.”

On the face of it, the system seems to be pretty successful. However, much of the downward trend was caused by the global economic recession, not the ETS. Moreover, both climate-chaos proponents and climate-disaster skeptics agree that the scheme will have no detectable impact on worldwide temperatures – perhaps 0.1 degrees – though this crucial piece of information has been carefully and deliberately shielded from the public eye.

What about renewable energy as an alternative? Consider these costs for various sources of electricity in cents per kilowatt-hour: Nuclear is 4, coal is 4, natural gas is 5, onshore wind is 13, biomass is 16 and solar is 56.

Obviously, the price tag for renewables is extremely high when compared to that for hydrocarbons. The additional costs can be justified either by imminent fossil-fuel scarcity (the “oil peak”), which would send prices for petroleum and coal through the roof, or by the threat of man-made global warming. But on closer inspection, neither argument is tenable.

The authoritative International Energy Agency does not foresee any substantial scarcity of oil and gas in the near to medium future, and coal reserves remain sufficient for centuries to come. As for global warming, there has been no statistically significant rise in average worldwide temperatures since 1995. Meanwhile, recent peer-reviewed studies indicate that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (natural or man-made) have minimal effects on climate change – and on balance, this plant-fertilizing gas is beneficial, rather than harmful, for mankind and the biosphere.

All this argues for a closer look at the cost/benefit relationship of investing in renewable-energy projects, to prevent a massive waste of resources in uncompetitive and thus wasteful forms of energy. Because every cloud has a silver lining, the ongoing economic crisis might give extra impetus toward that end.

Hans Labohm is a former professor at the Dutch Institute of International Relations and guest teacher at the Netherlands Institute for Defense Studies. He has also been an IPCC reviewer.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Trailer)

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full Length)

Global Warming Or Global Governance? (Full Length)

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Using Al the Goracle’s words, the science is settled… Indeed! – SJH

Link to original article below…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/5/climate-change-no-longer-scares-europe/?page=2

Scientists Say Cancer Purely Man-Made After Reviews Of Mummies

leave a comment »

October 14, 2010: Fiona MacRae / Mail Online – October 14, 2010

Cancer is a man-made disease fuelled by the excesses of modern life, a study of ancient remains has found.

Tumours were rare until recent times when pollution and poor diet became issues, the review of mummies, fossils and classical literature found.

A greater understanding of its origins could lead to treatments for the disease, which claims more than 150,000 lives a year in the UK.

Despite slivers of tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies being rehydrated, just one case of cancer has been confirmed. This is even though tumours should be better preserved by mummification than healthy tissues. Fossil evidence is also sparse, with just a few dozen – mostly disputed – examples, Nature Reviews Cancer journal reports.

Even the study of thousands of Neanderthal bones has provided only one example of a possible cancer. And references to cancer-like problems in ancient Egyptian texts are more likely to have been caused by leprosy or varicose veins.

Researcher Michael Zimmerman, a visiting professor at Manchester University, said: “The virtual absence of malignancies in mummies must be interpreted as indicating their rarity in antiquity. This indicates that cancer-causing factors are limited to societies affected by modern industrialisation.”

The ancient Greeks were probably the first to define cancer as a specific disease and to distinguish between benign and malignant tumours. But researchers said it was unclear if this signalled a real rise in the disease, or just a greater medical knowledge.

The 17th century provides the first descriptions of surgery for breast and other cancers, while the first reports of distinctive tumours occurred in the past 200 years or so. They include scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775 and nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761.

Co-researcher Professor Rosalie David said: “There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer.” So it has to be down to pollution and changes to diet and lifestyle.

“The important thing about our study is that it gives a historical perspective to this disease. Data from across the millennia has given modern society a clear message – cancer is man-made and something that we can and should address.”

Dr Rachel Thompson, of the World Cancer Research Fund, said a healthy diet, regular exercise and maintaining a healthy body weight can help prevent a third of common cancers. “So perhaps our ancestors’ lifestyle reduced risk from cancer,” she added.

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Or perhaps, it’s the fact that they didn’t poison their bodies with deadly vaccinations, flouridated water, GMO food, aspartame, chemtrails, and a myriad of other eugenicist concocted toxins our bodies are bombarded with on a daily basis?! – SJH 

Link to original article below…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1320507/Cancer-purely-man-say-scientists-finding-trace-disease-Egyptian-mummies.html

US Supreme Court Case Could Change Process In Vaccine Lawsuits

leave a comment »

October 12, 2010: Lauren Cox / LiveScience.com via Yahoo News – October 12, 2010

The Supreme Court is set to hear the first arguments Tuesday in a vaccine injury case that pediatricians and medical malpractice lawyers worry will drastically change how patients sue vaccine manufacturers in this country. By law, families who want to sue for vaccine injuries must first go through a special “vaccine court” created by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The Supreme Court must now decide whether a family can sue without going through vaccine court, on the grounds there was a defect in the design of the vaccine.

Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz, the plaintiffs in Tuesday’s case, are not the first to try to sue outside of vaccine court, but their case may decide how the cases of hundreds of other families suing vaccine manufacturers proceed. Their daughter, Hannah Bruesewitz, was 6 months old in 1992 when she received her third scheduled dose of the whooping cough-tetanus-diphtheria (DTP) childhood vaccine. Soon after, doctors diagnosed her with a seizure disorder, developmental problems and encephalopathy, a condition that can lead to permanent brain damage according to a bulletin hosted by Cornell University Law School.

When the vaccine court ruled DTP vaccine did not cause Hannah’s medical conditions, the Bruesewitz family brought a civil case against vaccine-maker Wyeth on the grounds that their vaccine was defective by design. The vaccine court is officially known as the Office of Special Masters, and was established within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Wyeth countered that the family had no right to sue outside vaccine court on grounds of a defect in vaccine design, and the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says if the Supreme Court reverses the decision, it will flood civil courts with expensive lawsuits that may put the nation’s supply of childhood vaccines at risk. “We very much wanted to make sure vaccine manufacturers are out of the line of lawsuits,” said Dr. O. Marion Burton, president of the AAP. “Otherwise, we end up with nobody producing vaccines, and nobody making new vaccines.”

However, vaccine injury lawyers say if the court finds in favor of Wyeth (now owned by Pfizer, Inc.), the decision will block crucial lawsuits that could reveal unknown risks of vaccines. “It would be a pretty narrow exception – it really narrows the scope of what you can bring out of the vaccine court,” said Jennifer Maglio, an attorney with Maglio Christopher Toale & Pitts, a Sarasota, FL firm that specializes in vaccine injury cases. Maglio said a ruling in favor of Wyeth would limit civil lawsuits to rare situations where the design of a vaccine was not in question. For example, cases in which the manufacturer allegedly mislabeled the vaccine, or contaminated it.

The Creation Of Vaccine Court

In the early 1980s, a high volume of vaccine injury cases with large settlements had pushed vaccine makers out of business. Only one manufacturer of DTP remained, and it threatened to stop production, according to a letter published in 2007 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In response, Congress created NCVIA and the new “vaccine court,” which had no jury, no-fault decisions and fewer requirements to prove injury than in civil court. Instead of relying on juries – and the wide range of rulings inherently possible with juries – the vaccine court turns to the official Vaccine Injury Table of known side effects from medical literature to decide if the vaccine caused the injury. The court may add or remove complications from the Vaccine Injury Table if emerging research reveals a condition is or is not connected to vaccines.

By the time Hannah Bruesewitz appeared before the vaccine court, her complications had been removed from the Vaccine Injury Table. “When it [DTP] went out in 1982, there was a one-hour documentary that made that [the Bruesewitz’] claim,” said Dr. Paul Offit, who is chief of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “It scared a lot of people, including doctors.” Offit said 10 years of research showed no link between DTP and conditions like the ones Hannah Bruesewitz experienced.

What A Change Would Mean

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the Brueswitz’, families bringing lawsuits could sidestep the vaccine court. This means the cases would be decided by a jury, and would not be held to the standards set by the Vaccine Injury Table. “But you can imagine how sympathetic a jury would be, even if the medical literature said the opposite,” said Offit.

Offit pointed to the example of Bendectin, a morning sickness pill that was taken off the U.S. market after high-cost civil lawsuits alleged the drug caused birth defects. The drug is still used in Canada, and medical literature has not shown it to cause birth defects.

However, Maglio points to Vioxx as a counter example. Merck removed its popular pain reliever Vioxx from the market in 2004, because it was found to the increase risk of heart attacks. Maglio said civil lawsuits were crucial to uncovering the side effects. “It really wasn’t until people sued that all those studies were released,” Maglio said.

Maglio worries the same opportunity for the “discovery” of complications from new vaccines – such as Gardasil – will disappear if the court finds in favor of Wyeth. “Because of the way the vaccine court is set up, there is no time for ‘discovery,'” Maglio said.

The Dangers of Vaccines – Part 1

The Dangers of Vaccines – Part 2

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: The “vaccine court” was set up to release vaccine makers from any and all liability, as well as provide “legal” cover to suppress damning, and/or release fraudulent, data concerning their vaccines at the expense of public health for profit and their eugenics depopulation agenda.

If the US Supreme Court rules in favor of Wyeth (Pfizer), it will be a clear indication that the law of this land is no longer in the hands of we the people and should send out a resounding message that vaccinations are not meant for anything other than profit and genocide and thus should be avoided at all costs! – SJH

Related:  Vaccine Damages Are No One’s Illusion – The Intel Hub.com

http://theintelhub.com/2010/10/12/vaccine-damages-are-no-one%E2%80%99s-illusion/

Link to original article below…

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101012/sc_livescience/supremecourtcasecouldchangevaccinelawsuits

Bill Gates Says Vaccinations Can Help ‘Reduce’ World’s Population

with one comment

October 1, 2010: Mike Adams / NaturalNews  – October 1, 2010

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People; S = Services per person; E = Energy per service; C = CO2 per energy unit.

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.” Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says: “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” You can watch this yourself at: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

Reducing the world population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says “if we do a really great job on new vaccines… we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?” Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is “health care,” which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a “sick care” system that actually harms more people than it helps.

Perhaps that’s the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let’s conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn’t be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can’t just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be “effective” from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that’s unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 – 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This “soft kill” method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don’t quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v…).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This “bioweapon” approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s…

Here’s the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259

The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a “hard kill” pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).

Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired… all in the name of health care!

The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the “hard kill” pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of “sweat-triggered vaccines” that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.

More interestingly, his foundation has also invested millions in sterilization technologies that have been called a “temporary castration” solution. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v…) It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula for CO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.

Who will be left alive? The smart people

The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.

I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, “It’s only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!” (Their words, not mine.)

In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an “evil genius” kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you’re not too bright and probably don’t engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.

If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.

In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don’t believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.

Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it’s not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don’t even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?

As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-care costs which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, “unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people” then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)

As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we’ve discussed here: “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.

My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you’ll also pass the “universal IQ test” which determines whether you’re smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop “seasonal flu” is a foolish endeavor.

Be healthy and wise, and you’ll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don’t have the intelligence to question what they’re being told to do by their own corrupt governments.

Bill Gates Wants A Billion Dead! Vaccines And Health Care Will Do The Job!

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: Meanwhile, check out the article below if you still trust vaccines– SJH

US Apologizes For 1940s Medical Experiments On Guatamalans Injected With STDs

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/10/nbc-us-doctors-in-1940s-experiment-injected-guatemalan-patients-with-venereal-disease-without-their-consent/1?POE=click-refer

Link to original article below…

http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html

The Chemtrail Conspiracy: ‘What In The World Are They Spraying?’

leave a comment »

September 29, 2010: Infowars Editors / Infowars.com – September 29, 2010

By now everyone has seen crisscrossing streaks of white clouds trailing behind jet aircraft, stretching from horizon to horizon, eventually turning the sky into a murky haze.

Our innate intelligence tells us these are not mere vapor trails from jet engines, but no one yet has probed the questions: WHO is doing this and WHY.

With the release of this video, all of that has changed. Here is the story of a rapidly developing industry called Geo-engineering, driven by scientists, corporations, and governments intent on changing global climate, controlling the weather, and altering the chemical composition of soil and water — all supposedly for the betterment of mankind.

Although officials insist that these programs are only in the discussion phase, evidence is abundant that they have been underway since about 1990 — and the effect has been devastating to crops, wildlife, and human health. We are being sprayed with toxic substances without our consent and, to add insult to injury, they are lying to us about it. Do not watch this documentary if you have high blood pressure.

Produced by G. Edward Griffin, Michael Murphy, and Paul Wittenberger. Runtime 95 minutes. Expected ship date, October 22, 2010. Preorder now to secure your copy. Order here and get it first…

http://www.infowarsshop.com/What-in-t…

Trailer: What In The World Are They Spraying?

The Tonka Report Editor’s Note: More information concerning Chemtrails at the link below– SJH

The Tonka Report Archive: Chemtrails

https://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/category/chemtrails/

Link to original article below…

http://www.infowars.com/what-in-the-world-are-they-spraying-2/