Thursday, 31 March 2016

Increased Cancer (to Iraqis) from Illegal War (by Americans)

The following disturbing article from the Washington Spectator here:

IRRADIATED IRAQ: The Nuclear Nightmare We Left Behind

  Posted on  in Foreign PolicyNational SecurityPolitics
Image Credit: Edel Rodríguez
When the United States revealed in January that it is testing a more nimble, more precise version of its B61 atom bomb, some were immediately alarmed. General James Cartwright, a former strategist for President Obama, warned that “going smaller” could make nuclear weapons “more thinkable” and “more usable.”
However, what is little known is that for the past 25 years, the Unites States and its allies have routinely used radioactive weapons in battle, in the form of warheads and explosives made with depleted, undepleted, or slightly enriched uranium. While the Department of Defense (DOD) calls these weapons “conventional” (non-nuclear), they are radioactive and chemically toxic. In Iraq, where the United States and its partners waged two wars, toxic waste covers the country and poisons the people. U.S. veterans are also sick and dying.
Scott Ritter, a former Marine Corps officer in Iraq and United Nations weapons inspector, told me, “The irony is we invaded Iraq in 2003 to destroy its non-existent WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. To do it, we fired these new weapons, causing radioactive casualties.”
The weapons were first used in 1991 during Desert Storm, when the U.S. military fired guided bombs and missiles containing depleted uranium (DU), a waste product from nuclear reactors. The Department of Defense (DOD) particularly prized them because, with dramatic density, speed, and heat, they blasted through tanks and bunkers.
Within one or two years, grotesque birth defects spiraled—such as babies with two heads. Or missing eyes, hands, and legs. Or stomachs and brains inside out.
Keith Baverstock, who headed the radiological section of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Center of Environment and Health in the 1990s, explained why: When uranium weapons explode, their massive blasts produce gray or black clouds of uranium oxide dust particles. These float for miles, people breathe them, and the dust lodges in their lungs. From there, they seep into the lymph system and blood, flow throughout the body, and bind to the genes and chromosomes, causing them to mutate. First, they trigger birth defects. Within five or more years, cancer. Organs, often the kidneys, fail.
At one Basra hospital, leukemia cases in children up to age 14 doubled from 1992 to 1999, says Amy Hagopian, a University of Washington School of Public Health professor. Birth defects also surged, from 37 in 1990 to 254 in 2001, according to a 2005 article in Environmental Health.
Leukemia—cancer of the blood—develops quickly. Chris Busby, a British chemical physicist, explains: “Blood cells are the most easily damaged by radiation and duplicate rapidly. We’ve known this since Hiroshima.”
Dai Williams, an independent weapons researcher in Britain, says the dust emits alpha radiation—20 times more damaging than the gamma radiation from nuclear weapons. The military insists the dust is harmless because it can’t penetrate the skin. They ignore that it can be inhaled.
Fast forward to 2003. When the United States reinvaded Iraq, it launched bunker-busting guided bombs, cruise missiles, and TOW anti-tank missiles. It also fired new thermobaric warheads—much stronger explosives with stunningly large blasts. Many of these, says Ritter, contained some type of uranium, whether depleted, undepleted, or slightly enriched.
Williams says thermobaric weapons explode at extremely high temperatures and “the only material that can do that is uranium.” He adds that while today’s nuclear weapons are nominally subject to international regulations, no existing arms protocol addresses uranium in a non-nuclear context.
While the U.S. government has cleaned up some contaminated sites at home—such as a former uranium munitions plant in Concord, Mass.—it has yet to acknowledge the mess in Iraq.
“Iraq is one large hazardous waste site,” Ritter says. “If it was the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency would declare it a Superfund site and order it be cleaned.”
We invaded Iraq to destroy its non-existent weapons of mass destruction. To do it, we fired these new weapons, causing radioactive casualties.

Left behind in Fallujah
Fallujah (pop. 300,000) is Iraq’s most contaminated city. The U.S. military attacked it twice in 2004, and in the November siege, troops fired thermobaric weapons, including a shoulder-launched missile called the SMAW-NE. (NE means “novel explosive.”)
Ross Caputi was there with the U.S. 1st Battalion 8th Marines. He told me, “We used the SMAW-NE and guys raved about how you could fire just one round and clear a building.” Concrete bunkers and buildings were instantly incinerated and collapsed. The DOD was not disappointed.
Cancers in Fallujah catapulted from 40 cases among 100,000 people in 1991 to at least 1,600 by 2005. In a 2010International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health article, Busby and two colleagues, Malak Hamden and Entesar Ariabi, reported a 38-fold increase in leukemia, a 10-fold increase in breast cancer, and infant mortality rates eight times higher than in neighboring Kuwait.
Busby sampled the hair of Fallujah women with deformed babies and found slightly enriched uranium. He found the same thing in the soil. “The only possible source was the weapons,” he states.
These numbers are probably low. “Iraqi women whose children have birth defects feel stigmatized and often don’t report them,” says Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a Michigan-based environmental toxicologist who won the 2015 Rachel Carson Award.
Besides the cancers and birth defects, an Irish pathologist (who asked for anonymity) said an unusually high number of children have cerebral palsy (CP) near the city of Hawija. “I was skeptical when Iraqi doctors told me, but I examined 30 and saw it was classic CP. I don’t know what caused this, but the increase is almost certainly war-related.”
It is often argued that uranium occurs in nature, so it’s impossible to link soil and other samples to the weapons. But, Ritter told me that when experts examine a site, they take samples, study them in a special lab, and can easily tell the difference between uranium that is natural and that which was chemically processed. “The idea that you can’t link soil samples to weapons because of the presence of natural uranium is simply ludicrous. It’s done all the time by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency and within the nuclear programs of all major nuclear powers,” Ritter says.

Burn pits and toxic clouds
In addition to the weapons’ lethal dust, Iraqis and coalition troops were exposed to poisonous smoke from huge open burn pits, some stretching 10 acres. From 2003 to 2011, U.S. military bases burned waste in the pits around the clock—spewing toxic clouds for miles.
Two were near Fallujah. Caputi says,“We dumped everything there. Our plastic bottles, tires, human waste, and batteries.”
Rubber, oil, solvents, unexploded weapons, and even medical waste were also tossed into the pits. As a 2008 Army Times article noted, Balad Air Base burned around 90,000 plastic bottles a day.
When plastic burns, it gives off dioxin—the key ingredient in Agent Orange, which caused malformations and cancer in Vietnam. Burn pits also produce hydrogen cyanide gas, Ritter says, which U.S. prisons used in their execution chambers from the mid-1920s until 2010, and which Nazis used at the Auschwitz and Majdanek concentration camps. Moreover, pits burning uranium-tinged debris produce uranium oxide dust.
When U.S. General Accountability Office (GAO) inspectors visited bases in 2010, they found much to criticize. Contractors running the pits—U.S. companies such as KBR and Halliburton—didn’t collect data on what they burned. (KBR said it wasn’t in their contract.) Few separated out toxic materials. Most burned plastics, although banned by regulations.
The GAO wrote that the fumes could irritate the eyes and lungs, damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system, and cause cancer, depending on how much is inhaled and for how long. Troops breathed them 24/7 during their tours, which were usually one year. Iraqis breathed them for eight years.
The now-closed Balad Air Base burned up to 200 tons of waste a day, and many U.S. troops stationed there now have diseases that mirror the diseases suffered by the Iraqis. Some have already died from brain and lung cancers, or leukemia, says Rosie Torres, who started, when her husband, an Army captain, returned in 2008 with severe breathing problems.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) x-rayed Captain LeRoy Torres’s lungs and diagnosed a disease of “unknown etiology.” When more veterans presented similar symptoms, the DOD asked Dr. Robert Miller, Vanderbilt’s Chief of Pulmonary Diseases, to study them. Dr. Miller told me, “We biopsied 200 veterans’ lungs and found they had constrictive bronchiolitis, a very debilitating disease. The DOD didn’t like that we biopsied them and that we found the disease was caused by what they were exposed to—which included the burn pits. After that, it didn’t send us more veterans to evaluate.”
Even as evidence mounts, the DOD and VA steadfastly deny the health effects of the weapons and pits. The Defense Health Agency website states, “No human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.”
From 2003 to 2011, U.S. military bases burned waste in the pits around the clock— spewing toxic clouds for miles.
Further, in a 2011 DOD report, Exposure to Toxins Produced by Burn Pits, the VA adds: “The effects from burn pits are only temporary and the negative health effects dissipate once a soldier is removed from the source.” In 2014, the VA website assured veterans that “So far, no health problems have been found in veterans exposed to DU.”
While the military admits it used DU in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, it has downplayed the extent. U.S. Marine Corps Captain Dominic Pitrone told The Washington Spectator, “The only weapons with DU in the USMC inventory were 120mm tank rounds.” As for the new SMAW-NE warhead, he said it “does not contain uranium.”
But Ritter says these claims are disingenuous. Though other DU munitions, such as aerial bombs and 25mm cannon rounds, may not have been in the USMC inventory, they were still “available to and used by USMC units in Iraq.”
And while the USMC may not label the SMAW-NE and thermobaric Hellfire missile as uranium weapons, Ritter says that “this doesn’t resolve whether the shaped-charge warheads [inside them] make use of uranium-enhanced liners.”
U.S. coalition partners—such as Britain, which also used uranium weapons—echo the denials. So too do the WHO and the Iraq Ministry of Health, which concluded in 2012 that Iraq had fewer birth defects and cancers than developed countries.
But Hagopian says the ministry surveyed households instead of using hospital records. Finding this unscientific, a 2013 Lancet article called for a new study. Last November, the American Public Health Association asked the military to ban burn pits and fund research on their health effects. It also asked the WHO to rethink its conclusion.
Researchers tell of attempts by authorities to quash investigations. In 1991, for example, the United States tried to keep the WHO from “surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers,” Hans von Sponek, a former U.N. official, told the Guardian.
Karol Sikora, a British oncologist who headed WHO’s cancer program in the 1990s, told me his supervisor (who focuses on non-communicable diseases) warned him that they shouldn’t speak publicly about the cancers and birth defects “because this would offend member states.”
Similarly, Baverstock says, “I was on a WHO editorial committee and I warned about the uranium weapons’ geno-toxicity effect on DNA. My comments were rejected—probably because the WHO monograph didn’t include this.”
Those who persist fare badly.
Horst Gunther, a German physician, went to Iraq to study the spiking diseases. He saw children play with DU shells on Basra’s battlefield, took one to Germany to study, and found it was extremely radioactive. He told German authorities and was arrested for possessing it.
In 2003, Chief Justice Y.K.J. Yeung Sik Yuen of Mauritius, a delegate to the U.N. Sub-Commission on Human Rights, wrote of “the cavalier disregard, if not deception, on the part of the developers and users of these weapons regarding their effects.” After he refused to reverse his position that DU weapons are illegal and violate the Geneva Convention, the U.S. and Britain campaigned against his reelection to the subcommission. He lost.
Hagopian says researchers can’t study the uranium weapons’ effects because “the U.S. won’t fund the work.”
Why can’t the DOD, VA, Iraq government, and WHO come clean?
Ritter says, “The DOD doesn’t want the public to know about the toxic dust, because of the liability. As for Iraq, it will agree with the U.S. as long as it depends on the U.S. for financial and military support. As for the WHO, the U.S. contributes more to U.N. agencies and the WHO than any other country.”
Williams adds that there’s growing international concern about uranium weapons, since they’re radioactive. As early as 1991, Army Lt. Col. Ziehm warned in a memo that because DU weapons “may become politically unacceptable,” after-action reports must “keep this sensitive issue at mind.” In other words, don’t tell.
Media coverage of uranium weapons and the spiraling sickness has been meager. Malak Hamden said when she and colleagues published the 2010 Fallujah study, “CNN said something, but no newspapers touched the story.” A BBC reporter told Williams the public doesn’t want to know about uranium weapons.
In the meantime, the United States continues to build them. Williams notes that U.S. Patent Office records show Lockheed Martin and Raytheon hold patents for enhanced bombs and cruise missile warheads that include uranium options.
Today, with the U.S., Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, and Russia bombing Syria, and with the Saudis bombing and the U.S. firing drones into Yemen—with some of the same kinds of weapons unleashed in Iraq—it is likely that the people living there, along with fleeing refugees, will suffer just as the Iraqis and veterans have.
As Busby notes, uranium oxide dust is like a bomb that keeps going off. “People’s genes are damaged for generations. Scientists found this in 22 generations of mice, after Chernobyl. The only way mutated genes disappear is when carriers don’t have children.”
Barbara Koeppel is a Washington D.C.-based investigative reporter.

Monday, 28 March 2016

Lahore Bombing: Familiar Red Flags!

Hotel Fall Update.

As soon as I saw the BBC headlining the Lahore bombing on the 9 o'clock news,(5) complete with moving, heart-wrenching personal descriptions and on-scene camera images, I had those familiar uneasy feelings of deja vu, those familiar uneasy questions. What was the event for? What reaction was it meant to provoke? Who was actually behind it? Was it what it was purported to be or yet another 'False Flag', with which the world now appears to be plagued?

Tragically the reputation of the BBC has been besmirched by the revelations concerning its knowledge and protection of the serious misdeeds of Jimmy Savile. But much worse for its credibility, has been its biased and factually inaccurate representation of, particularly, events in Gaza and Ukraine and of the terrorist atrocities of, particularly, 9/11 in New York and 7/7 in London.

In all these instances it has done little more than provide an unquestioning outlet for government opinion. It has also gone beyond it, trashing the factual evidence of government conspiring to present a false story to the public. 

In the case of 9/11 from the very first, with the now legendary reporting of the collapse of Building Seven, (itself clearly a planned and coordinated demolition, unconnected to any plane) before it actually took place (1); through the rubbishing of scientists and architects with compelling evidence of fraud (2); to refusing to acknowledge or disseminate the truth about it. 

The same basic criticisms apply to the London tube bombings (3) where its treatment of those who have sought to reveal the truth, vindicated in criminal proceedings, as in the case of 'Muad'Dib' the author of the widely seen '7/7 Ripple Effect'.(4)

A much more detailed 'Global Research' discussion on BBC reliability in matters of world events and public policy can be found here (6).

I am sorry to say it, but we cannot trust the BBC when it comes to fair and accurate reporting, particularly if and when the events involve the security or intelligence services of this or other countries. 

Not only has it proved itself unreliable over what it reports, it has actively gone out of its way to undermine the truth, which for any patriotic Englishman, is very hard to accept. Either in respect of the BBC or Government. Nevertheless it is with this in mind that we must view its coverage - or absence of -any 'terrorist event', at home or abroad, and most recently in Lahore on Easter Day 2016.

The received 'wisdom' in the case of Lahore, as with events in Paris and Brussels, is that the outrages have been organised and carried out by ISIS-related jihadist entities and personnel. Nothing is allowed to challenge this basic narrative. Any countervailing evidence or indication is not given the time of day or allowed air-time. There can be no whiff of 'false-flaggery', despite its undoubted existence.

The very fact that this event, admittedly quite horrific, was given such immediate and prominent coverage, is therefore an immediate a warning sign. On the face of it, it might not seem strange given the circumstances, but it needs to be set in the comparative context of how other similar events have been treated. 

Of the two hundred and forty four (244) terrorist events in just six months from July to December 2015 listed here (7) , only a handful have been reported by the BBC and even less as headline news items across the network. This must tell us something about how 'news' is created and disseminated. It also tells us something about Lahore. It is as much shaped by the news empire, as it is by the terrorist! 

In this instance the main message was merciless Muslim violence against specifically Christians on Easter Sunday. Apart from the dubious nature of the claim that it was only Christians who were affected, it is so obviously in tune with the propaganda being pumped out from certain quarters that it shouts fraud. 

Women and children, as so often is the case, are given high profile. It incidentally maintains the momentum of Paris and Brussels, whilst conveniently distracting attention from the brutality (including murder by the IDF) and repression going on in the West Bank.

So the timing, thrust of the message, its treatment and its context is highly suspicious. Despite the inhospitable and remote location, it appears BBC cameras were on scene almost immediately to record in graphic detail the suffering.

Even Facebook immediately put a warning system into play that went disastrously wrong - or did it? 

Many (we don't know how many) subscribers were warned even if nowhere the scene. (Others may be able to check the timing of this for we often find planned events are often pre-announced in the media) Or was it an attempt to personalise and make real the event and generate anxiety and alarm, particularly in the United States and Europe? (8)

Then there are a number of additional, and now rather predictable tell tale signs that everything is not quite as it should be. 

Despite causing such devastation with presumably innumerable body parts blown everywhere, it is possible for the authorities to miraculously discover a 'skull', which it can not only identify but also attach to the bomber. Further, and yet again, the very helpful contribution by a miracle document that the bomber thoughtfully brought with him and which survived the inferno, to guide the police to the likely offender! 

The preposterous nature of this phenomenon amazingly replicates 9/11, 7/7, Paris and Brussels. As always we have the predictable 'crackdown' AFTER the event with the arrest of associates. No one ever explains how they are so quickly identified or why if known, the attack could not have been prevented. Sadly the fact is that usually government agencies are not only aware but also involved!

From 'Dawn' we get this: 

"DIG Operations Haider Ashraf said that at least 15 to 20 kg explosive material had been used by the suicide bomber. He said that police found the ‘skull’ of the suspect from the blast site and sent it for forensic analysis. To a question about the motive behind the terrorism, he said it would be premature to say anything at this stage. "However, the terrorist hit a very soft target of women and children," he said.

"An identity card police found from the site of the blast may be of the alleged suicide bomber. The DIG Operations said that according to initial inquiry, Yousuf, a young man from Muzaffargarh, might be the bomber. He said four friends of Yousuf had been detained by Muzaffargarh police from Basti Sohrani for questioning.

A witness, who was running a stall near the blast site, told reporters that a suspect aged between 20 and 30 was seen roaming in the park. He said one of the security guards of the Park had questioned 
him for his presence and then left him unattended." (11)

Vice, an agency that exclusively brought us the ISIS 'beheadings' has this: 

"Authorities said they had recovered one leg and the head of the suicide bomber, who they said was around 23 to 25 years old. Initial reports suggest at least 20 kg of explosives were used in a suicide jacket that also contained nuts and bolts." (9) 

Reuters has this : "Rescue services spokeswoman Deeba Shahnaz said at least 29 children, seven women and 34 men were killed and about 340 were wounded, with 25 in serious condition." (10) 

The timing of the Easter attack in Lahore and the way it was presented as a clash of religions and ideology and linked to events in India and Brussels is highly suspicious to my mind.

Why was the Lahore attack given such prominence by the BBC and other news agencies, whilst other similar have been virtually ignored? That is the question that needs to be asked. 

Whoever planted the bombs needed expertise, infrastructure, material and control, which might equally, if not more likely, be in the hands of those with a much wider global and coordinated agenda.'

1. See:

2. See the notorious interview with Niels Harrit here:






8. facebook apology: and




Fall from grace?
Autism, Vaccination and Robert de Nero


"How did they threaten Robert De Niro?"

“On July 26, 2000, the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association V published a review by Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered public-health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Dr. Starfield’s review, ‘Is US health really the best in the world?’, concluded that, every year in the US, the medical system kills 225,000 people. That’s 2.25 million killings per decade.” (Jon Rappoport, The Starfield Revelation)
This is explosive.
This is about a film no one can see, because it exposes lunatics and destroyers in the vaccine industry.
Here is a quote from the Vaxxed producer and director, after their film was just axed from Robert De Niro’s Tribeca Festival (as reported by Jeremy Gerard, see: “‘Vaxxed’ Filmmakers Accuse De Niro, Tribeca Film Fest Of ‘Censorship’ In Wake Of Cancelation,”3/26/2016):
“’To our dismay, we learned today about the Tribeca Film Festival’s decision to reverse the official selection of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,’ said Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree (the director and producer, respectively). Robert De Niro’s original defense of the film happened Friday after a one-hour conversation between De Niro and Bill Posey, the congressman who has interacted directly and at length with the CDC Whistleblower (William Thompson) and whose team has scrutinized the documents that prove fraud at the CDC. …” (emphasis added)
Okay. So here is the sequence…
  1. De Niro, who has an autistic child, decides to screen Vaxxed at his Tribeca Festival. It’s a film that reveals lies and crimes, and shows there is a causative connection between vaccines and autism.
  2. Pressure is applied to De Niro, so he meets with Florida Congressman Bill Posey, who lets him know the film is right on target. Posey knows, because he and his team have many pages of documents from CDC researcher, William Thompson, who blew the whistle on vaccine-autism fraud in 2014.
  3. De Niro decides he’ll not only screen the film, he’ll introduce it himself, live, onstage.
  4. Out of the shadows emerge people who put the screws to De Niro. What do they tell him? His career in film will end? His annual Tribeca Film Festival will go down the toilet? The medical treatment his autistic child is receiving will be cut off? He and family are now “not safe?”
  5. De Niro backs away and cancels the showing of Vaxxed.
He’s been taught a lesson. Don’t go up against the medical cartel. Keep your mouth shut. Suffer in silence.
Think about this. You can see a film about US drone strikes killing innocent civilians. You can see a film about criminal surveillance of the entire population. You can see a film about the CIA overthrowing foreign governments. You can see a film about mega-corporations spewing chemicals into towns, where children are born with defects and adults are dying of cancer.
But you can’t see a film that suggests a vaccine could be causing autism.
That’s too hot. That strikes at a secret too big to tell. That torpedoes a monopoly that must be protected, no matter what. Censored. Blacked out.
To boil down the background: In 2014, long-time respected CDC researcher, William Thompson, made a statement asserting that he and several esteemed colleagues had lied about a key study they authored 10 years earlier. The study actually revealed a connection between the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine and the onset of autism in young black boys—but that part of the study was censored. In fact, Thompson said, he and his colleagues sat in a room at the CDC, brought in a garbage can, and threw out those pages of research. That’s right.
But Thompson kept copies of the pages. Congressman Bill Posey and a few other people have those pages. Thompson says, through his lawyer, that he will not speak to reporters. He’ll work with Congress, if an investigation is mounted. But there is no indication Congressional hearings will ever be laid on. Because this story is too big.
This is the subject of the film, Vaxxed. The betrayal of the people by the Centers for Disease Control.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the prospect of Vaxxed being shown at Robert De Niro’s own festival—with him on stage introducing it—raised alarms at the CDC. Loud ones.
There is a very good chance that the CDC reached out to someone, who in turn reached out to De Niro and whispered in his ear and caused the actor to pause for thought.
He paused, and decided to turn around. He decided the risk was too great. He laid down his sword, such as it was, and went dark.
First Amendment? Never heard of it.
We now live in a country where the government decides, when it needs to, how to “protect the population” from “dangerous information.” . In this case, the Hippocratic Oath is turned inside out. It becomes: “First, do harm.”
Vaccines can cause autism? Well, sure, but don’t tell people that. Lie and keep lying, and keep calling it science.
Who cares how many children are destroyed?
Protect the medical monopoly. Protect the vaccinators. Don’t let a film see the light of day.
But it will. One way or another, it will be shown and people will see it and then they will know.
Source: Jon Rappoport

From the following web site:

Petition update

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth, are the people with something to hide."-Obama

"Mar 28, 2016 — Recently, this film has been criticized as being "anti-vaccine." 
This is not an anti-vaccine film. It is a film exposing the fraud within the CDC. It is a film bringing to light the VERY REAL side effects that vaccination comes with, and the need for change. Why would anyone want to suppress crucial information that involves the health and well being of our nation, and the world? Because they have something to hide.

"If anyone thinks that vaccines are "safe" and without risk, we encourage you to download any/all of the currently licensed vaccine inserts (directly from the manufacturers). Vaccine inserts can be found in the links below. 

"When you read a vaccine insert that lists the following:
"Asthenia, chills, death, fatigue, malaise, Autoimmune diseases, hypersensitivity reactions including 
anaphylactic/anaphylactoid reactions, bronchospasm, and urticaria, Arthralgia, myalgia, Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, dizziness, Guillain-Barré 
syndrome, headache, motor neuron disease, paralysis
, seizures, syncope (including syncope associated 
with tonic-clonic movements and other seizure-like acti
vity) sometimes resulting in falling with injury, transverse myelitis. Infections and infestations: cellulitis. 
Vascular disorders: Deep venous thrombosis"....AND MORE (from a single vaccine insert) you don't associate those with being "safe." ESPECIALLY when it lists 40 deaths in studies.
Package insert for above reference found here: Section 6.2:

"Please do your research into vaccines and the risk they come with. Educate those around you to do the same. This is not anti-vaccine, but vaccine education. If you do not know that these vaccines come with these risks, and that you and you alone are responsible for the outcome of a vaccine injury, then you are not truly "informed."

All currently licensed vaccine inserts can be found here:

"We continue our unwavering support for Tribeca, Robert DeNiro and everyone involved in the decision making process, and encourage them to do the right thing by uncovering the truth. Its been a long time coming, and a long fight at that. The world deserves this truth, and we eagerly await your reply. 
We have created a movement to change the world, and we're doing it! We will be heard! Keep the signatures coming and never give up hope that the truth will prevail, because it ABSOLUTELY will." 

Sunday, 27 March 2016

Duke of Edinburgh Recommends 'Good Read'!

"The result is a fascinating read, although an unnerving one for anyone who has the tastes and appetites of Mr Toad and the income of Mr Rat." The Times.

The Duke of Edinburgh photographed leaving a Windsor Castle Easter Day Mass carrying a copy of the critically acclaimed book by David Lough on his investigation into the heretofore hidden precarious personal finances of Sir Winston Churchill. With so many years in the public eye, this could hardly be accidental, surely? It is even colour coordinated with the Queen's impeccable daffodil spring outfit. Was it intended to convey a message to public and politicians regarding the Royal finances, or of a past political leader of stature and great achievements, or even of the story from the New Testament about Christ overturning the tables of the money changers in the Temple? On the face of it it appears an inappropriate item to be carrying from a religious service commemorating the resurrection or is it? With such a notable recommendation it must be worth reading mustn't it? Many obviously think so, as it is already sold out and in a second print run.

The young girl curtsied before the Queen before handing her the Easter flowers which complimented the royal's spring outfit 


"Critics on  both sides of the Atlantic hail No More Champagne

‘Reads as effortlessly as a novel … [it] may become a classic. It will transform the way that Churchill is interpreted and understood’ – Tim Congdon, The New Criterion

‘ Brilliant new book’- Charles Moore, The Daily Telegraph

David Lough’s No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money is the first fully researched, lifetime narrative of Winston Churchill’s precarious private finances. It is now on sale in hardback, e-book and audio book formats. It was listed by The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Mail and The Guardian among their ‘books of the year’ for 2015; and was shortlisted for theLongman-History Today Book of the Year Prize 2016.

Churchill lived for most of his life on a financial cliff edge. The popular image may be of champagne and cigars; however, behind the scenes, his friends and family came to the rescue several times to prevent his financial problems from engulfing his political career. Only fragments of this story have so far emerged. A retired banker and history scholar of Oxford University, David Lough has unearthed new material from the unprecedented access he was given to the private records of Churchill and his associates. He now tells the fascinating and surprising story of Churchill and his finances for the first time.
Find out more about the book, how David researched it, his background and his schedule of events – andhow to order a copy with a dedication from the author – or from bookshops and Amazon.
“For ages I have been puzzled by the odd bits information, often contradictory, that have emerged about Churchill’s money problems. I was surprised to find that no one had written about the subject properly before – but even more surprised by the story that emerges from my research. It is richer than I had dared hope…”"

Who is David Lough? Biography reproduced from here:

"Born in 1950, David Lough won an open history scholarship to Oxford University where he won 1st class honours, studying under historians Richard Cobb, Michael Howard and Theodore Zeldin.  He pursued a career in financial markets, starting in Asia and investment banking, before founding a private banking business in 1988.  It was sold in 2013, by which time it employed a hundred people advising many prominent families across the range of their private affairs, including their investments, tax affairs and inheritance planning.  
"A former member of the London Stock Exchange and Fellow of the Chartered Securities Institute who has acted as ‘blind trustee’ for government ministers while in office, David Lough returned to history on his retirement, using his experience to research the untold story of Winston Churchill’s tangled financial affairs.  He edited a magazine that he founded in the 1990s and has written regularly  for the wealth management industry and its publications.  An experienced public speaker at conferences and dinners, he is a member of the London Library’s Founders’ Circle.