Assemblage Point

Assemblage Point: "I have found my life runs more smoothly when I turn the tables, when I assume that life is constantly providing me with a mirror, a reflected image of my own mind and heart, in everything I encounter. The basic premise is that I attract things in my outer world that are a match to my inner world at the moment. It's a sort of homeopathic spiritual principle, rather than my previous approach which I could compare to an allopathic approach.

In allopathic (traditional western) medicine, the idea is that we must use substances (usually drugs) to suppress the symptoms of the illness, and that is what makes us better. In contrast, homeopathic medicine believes that the symptoms of 'illness' are actually the body's strategy for re-establishing health. In homeopathic wisdom, you take a histimine (rather than an anti-histimine) to support the body's strategy of flooding the sinus cavities with mucus, and take things that induce a fever to support the fever started by your body to maintain stasis. Again, its a reversing of cause and effect, and what we assume about the relationship about correlated events in our experience. "

The Theosophical Society

The Theosophical Society: "A primary idea is the essential oneness of all beings. Life is everywhere throughout the cosmos because all originates from the same unknowable divine source. Consequently, everything from the subatomic to plants, animals, humans, planets, stars, and galaxies is alive and evolving. Each is divine at its root and expresses itself through spiritual, intellectual, psychological, ethereal, and material ranges of consciousness and substance. Evolution reflects this emerging self-expression of faculties which differentiates into material forms; develops spiritual and conscious aspects; and, over cosmic time-periods, returns to the divine source. The life of the individual, of humanity, and of the entire earth is part of this cosmic process.

Exhibiting this fundamental oneness, altruism and compassion are human expressions of cosmic and planetary realities. Humanity is more closely joined inwardly than physically, and our thoughts and feelings have a potent impact on others. By following our highest inner promptings as best we can, we benefit our immediate surroundings and humanity as a whole. The ideal is to put the welfare of humanity and all that lives ahead of one's own progress."

With Drug Studies, Read Between the Lines

With Drug Studies, Read Between The Lines

News flash: When the drug industry pays for research on new drugs, the findings are more likely to be favorable than when the same sorts of studies are funded by those with no financial ties to the industry, such as Cochrane Collaboration reviews. This was the conclusion of a recent "study of studies" (called a meta-analysis) by the British Medical Journal. Researchers compared reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration -- an international, not-for-profit, independent body that critiques health-care outcomes -- with industry-supported studies. It may not be that the findings that were supported by industry were falsified or otherwise tampered with, but rather that critical information on methodology limitations and other aspects of the study design and certain results were less likely to be included in the published report -- and that's a potentially dangerous problem since it is here that knowledgeable experts are likely to see red flags that raise important questions.

HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN?

A meta-analysis of this kind comes along every few years, says Jay S. Cohen, MD (www.medicationsense.com), author of What You Must Know About Statin Drugs & Their Natural Alternatives (Square One) and Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies (Tarcher/Penguin). In his expert view, the results come as no surprise. Always anxious to introduce and sell new drugs, pharmaceutical companies seem to persistently slant the research their way, maximizing the positive aspects of its exciting new products and minimizing those of concern, he says. "It should be called the drug sales industry, not the drug industry," muses Dr. Cohen. We talked more about the inherent conflict of interest, and why it is so important for consumers to know about it.

AN OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Drug companies clearly have a vested interest -- hundreds of millions of dollars worth -- in developing, receiving approval for and marketing a new drug. As brand-name drugs that drug companies had exclusive rights to market go "off patent" and become available in cheaper generic versions, the ability to develop "new" drugs -- even though many of these drugs differ little from earlier drugs -- enables Big Pharma to continue to pull in the mind-numbing profits that dwarf those of most other industries. Not surprisingly, it is believed there is considerable pressure on drug-company-paid researchers to accentuate the positive results and minimize the negative ones, even though this demonstrates an obvious conflict of interest.

In contrast, the Cochrane Collaboration reviews are conducted without industry support from drug companies, and its reviews and database are considered a gold standard for analyses by the medical establishment. Studies by such independent groups, in general, are more likely than industry-sponsored research to identify and address the issue of bias. Using this more systematic and critical approach, independent reviews are not apt to simply rubberstamp products. (Unfortunately, Big Pharma's tentacles extend into doctors' offices and their affiliated medical schools, with promises of free samples, seminars in exotic locales and academic grants, resulting in a large number of independent doctors with links to drug companies.)

PLAYING DODGEBALL WITH LIFE-THREATENING DRUG RISKS

Dr. Cohen points out that this over-reliance on industry-sponsored studies has already had serious and harmful consequences. There's the case of the arthritis drug, Vioxx (rofecoxib), which was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of increased risk of heart attack and stroke. In 2005, a New York Times article reported that manufacturer Merck was well aware of increased cardiovascular risks, yet covered them up... documents that emerged during trial revealed that Merck scientists were concerned about increased heart risks as far back as 1997, two years before Vioxx was even approved. However, the drug giant downplayed these negative studies, and one marketing document even advised sales reps to play "Dodgeball" -- that is, dodge questions from doctors concerned about Vioxx's risks. In another egregious instance, Merck funded and approved the design of the study of Vioxx at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital, only to discredit researchers' conclusions (and insist that a Merck employee remove her name from the study) when the research revealed increased heart attack risk. Months later, the company was finally compelled to remove Vioxx from the market due to safety concerns and an increase in cardiovascular events.

Dr. Cohen is also worried about a recent study of a best-selling drug, Lipitor (atorvastatin). Pfizer has significantly raised its profits by aggressively promoting high-dose Lipitor -- which costs one-third more than the low dose -- along with new uses for this cholesterol-lowering statin. A Pfizer-sponsored study reported in The New England Journal of Medicine (August 10, 2006) suggests that Lipitor should be taken by people at risk of a second stroke, or a stroke after a transient ischemic attack (TIA), even if they don't have heart disease. But, notes Dr. Cohen, in this study overall mortality stayed the same, whether they took Lipitor or not. While it's true that cardiovascular deaths dropped in the study, other deaths rose, so despite Pfizer's positive spin on the research -- which earned them front-page headlines across the country -- it didn't really connote success. This raises serious concerns about safety, says Dr. Cohen, since Lipitor -- especially at high doses -- is a potent drug with powerful side effects. Authors of this study had financial ties to Pfizer, and several were Pfizer employees, facts that raise red flags about potential conflicts of interest.

GREATER TRANSPARENCY REQUIRED ACROSS THE BOARD

Interestingly, while I was writing this story, a news report came out on a similar study revealing the same research bias in the food industry. In a review of 24 industry-backed studies of soft drinks, milk and juices, 21 (88%) had results favorable or neutral to food manufacturers. Of 52 independent studies without industry financing, only 32 (62%) were favorable or neutral, and 20 (38%) were unfavorable.

What should you do with all this information? The Cochrane Collaboration recommends that doctors and consumers learn to view industry-supported studies with greater caution. In particular, always examine study author's company affiliations, advises Dr. Cohen. Take into account whether researchers are affiliated with or paid by the manufacturer of the drug being studied. Because of recent concerns, medical journals increasingly require this information of contributors and share it with readers. For greater reliability, Dr. Cohen urges greater transparency overall, including more information on methodology and estimated effects of drugs. And, whenever possible, it is wisest to base health-care decisions on unbiased studies without industry sponsoring.

Note: To read about more practical strategies for safe and effective use of drugs (exercise health skepticism about new drugs, ask about generics, etc.), see the Daily Health News article from February 2, 2006.

How to Save Money on Organic Food

How to Save Money on Organic Food Ronnie Cummins Organic Consumers Association any people who would like to eat organic fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat and poultry are put off by the high prices. Organic foods can cost 25% to 100% more than regular foods -- but if you're willing to do a bit of sleuthing and look beyond traditional grocery stores, you can find organic products for much less. My organization's Web site, www.organicconsumers.org, has links to most of the resources suggested below... Compare prices of conventional and organic foods when shopping at regular grocery stores. Occasionally, the price gap narrows dramatically, or organic foods may even be cheaper. Shop at a farmers market. You can find bargains if you prowl around the stalls of your local farmers market. You'll save even more if you haggle. Farmers may be especially willing to negotiate prices if produce is misshapen or closing time is approaching. Sample savings: Organic apples at a farmers' market often are 25% to 50% cheaper than organic apples at grocery or natural-food stores. Consider purchasing a share in a community-supported agriculture program (CSA). There are more than 1,000 of these programs around the US. Through a CSA, you purchase produce from an organic farmer in a region near you. You'll receive a weekly basket that contains produce, flowers and perhaps even eggs and milk. A share in a CSA typically costs several hundred dollars for one growing season, which could last half a year (prices vary dramatically depending on location). In mild regions, such as California, you can receive just-picked produce year-round. Each week it's fun to discover what goodies are in the basket. Sample savings: In rural Minnesota, where I live, I pay $450 for the season and split my weekly harvest with another family. This is at least 50% cheaper than store prices. Helpful: Most CSAs deliver produce orders to a central location. You may be able to reduce the price of your weekly delivery if you allow your front porch to serve as a delivery spot for your neighborhood. CSAs can be found at the Web site of Local Harvest (www.localharvest.org), as well as on my Web site. Join a food co-op. Co-ops typically offer high-quality organic food and produce at a discount for members. You may be required to volunteer your time for a certain number of hours each month. For a list of co-ops, see my organization's Web site. Buy in bulk. This is a great way to save money on long-lasting and nonperishable organic food, such as dried beans, lentils, pasta, rice, cereals, trail mix, nuts and even peanut butter. Health-food stores, Whole Foods, and even some supermarkets sell bulk items. Cheaper still: Join a wholesale buying club (regular yearly membership fee is between $35 and $50). The minimum order for the club I belong to is $1,000 every three months, so I share a membership with several families in my area. Typical savings: 30% to 50% off retail. There is no national directory of buying clubs. Ask your local natural-food store for the names of its organic-food suppliers and contact them. Eat seasonally. You're sure to overpay if you buy organic fruits and vegetables off-season. That's when you want to buy frozen or canned. When produce is bountiful and cheap, you may want to can, freeze or dry it for the coming months. Bottom Line/Personal interviewed Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit organization that promotes food safety, children's health and environmental sustainability, Finland, Minnesota. www.organicconsumers.org. He is author of Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers (Marlowe & Company).

What is New Thought?....Reprinted

What is New Thought?
Reprinted from International New Thought Alliance Bulletin # 4,
December 15, 1916

Many inquiries are received at the headquarters asking the question, "What is New Thought?" New Thought believes in the good. The motto of the old Crusaders was "God with us." The motto of the New Thought is "God in us." The consciousness of the divinity at the heart of things gives life a new meaning. If man is made in the image of God, he partakes of the divine nature. God is love, God is health, God is abundance, God is Joy, God is peace, God is illuminated intelligence, God is from everlasting to everlasting, in the eternal here and now; and man, who is the child of God, made in His image, partakes of all these things. This is the New Thought - the New Thought of God. God is not alien; He is the one life and we are in that one life. All the good belongs to us. It is our divine inheritance.

"New Thought" is not a name or expression used to designate any fixed system of thought, philosophy, or religion, but the term itself conveys the idea of a growing or developing thought. When New Thought is molded and formed into a system, it ceases to be NEW Thought. Truth is not susceptible of monopoly or being made into a system. It can not be encompassed by institution, but its living Spirit is present in every manifested form and object of nature.

The New Thought practices in the twentieth century what Jesus taught and practiced in the first century. He taught healing - it practices healing. He said "Judge not that ye not be judged" - it discourages condemnation and sees the good in others. He admonishes us to take no anxious thought for the morrow - it practices the divine supply. He taught faith - it makes faith the central principle of its theory and practice. He taught love and brotherhood - it is demonstrating unity and cooperation. The New Thought is the Christ thought made new by being applied and proved in every-day affairs.

The New Thought is positive. It would overcome sickness by health, error by truth, anger by love, evil by good. The things of God are all positive, for any negation is lack of God.

The New Thought is constructive. It is a philosophy of optimism. Jesus said, "I come not to destroy, but to fulfill," - not to tear down, but to build up. New Thought is the recognition, realization, and manifestation of God in man.

Life is organic. The life principle is always manifested thru harmonious cooperation of different cells and organs. A movement that is vital must have the same harmonious cooperation between individuals that compose it. True organization is the very opposite of crystallization, for crystallization means death, while organization of the right kind means life and life more abundant.

Organization in no wise limits individuality, but rather supplements and completes it. There are certain things that many, working together, can do better than the same individuals can do working alone. Team-play is the keynote of this age - the most vital and progressive age in history.

An organization does not believe and therefore should not dictate the belief of its members. Only individuals believe. Each man has his own creed. The very word is from "credo" which is a singular verb in the first person, meaning "I believe. " True organization has no right to interfere with this most sacred prerogative of the human soul. It is the divine right of each individual to believe what he pleases. As a man's home is his castle, so his conviction is sacred and belongs to a realm that society has no business to invade. With belief, organization has nothing to do, although the beliefs of its members have everything to do with organization, for they constitute its soul. In the true sense, individuals should have more liberty in cooperation and correlation than when working at divergent and cross purposes, without being rightly related each to the other. For what is liberty but the freedom to fill ones' own part in the divine scheme, and how can we best fulfill this part except as we work in harmony with others who are filling their parts?

Organizations are created to do things which can better be done by working together than by working singly. It is on these lines that the International New Thought Alliance is proceeding. It is merely a band of individual centers and individual teachers and followers working together in freedom for one common purpose, and this purpose is to carry the Truth message and the healing message to all who are ready to receive.

According to the Constitution of the International New Thought Alliance its purpose is:

"To spread the knowledge of the infinitude of the Supreme One, the divinity of man and his infinite possibilities, through the creative power of constructive thinking and in obedience to the edicts of the Indwelling Presence which is our source of inspirational power, health, and prosperity, as taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ."

The Future of Freedom

An Anti-Democracy Foreign Policy: Guatemala
by Jacob G. Hornberger, February 11, 2005

Unfortunately, the CIA "success" in Iran, which produced the CIA's ouster of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, bred a CIA "success" in another part of the world, Latin America. One year after the 1953 coup in Iran, the CIA did it again, this time in Guatemala, where U.S. officials feared the communist threat even more than they did in Iran.

This time, the target was the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, a self-avowed socialist whose domestic policies were in fact modeled after the socialist New Deal policies of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt.

Arbenz's socialist mindset had driven him to adopt an "agrarian reform plan," a type of land-distribution scheme that unfortunately is all too common in Latin America. The plan entailed the confiscation of a portion of land owned by a major U.S. corporation operating in Guatemala at that time, United Fruit, and its redistribution to Guatemalan peasants. While the plan was an almost perfect embodiment of the socialist concept of taking property from the rich to give to the poor, in actuality it was no different in principle from the wealth-redistributi on revolution that FDR's welfare-state concept brought to America, whereby the primary purpose of the federal government became taxing the income of the rich in order to redistribute the money to the needy (or, in reality, to the politically privileged).

So Arbenz had two strikes against him already as far as the CIA was concerned — his belief in socialism and his confrontation with a major U.S. corporation that had strong allies in the U.S. Congress. His third strike knocked him out — his unwillingness to obey U.S. government orders to rid his government of self-avowed communists.

Consequently, flush with the "success" of its coup in Iran the year before, in 1954 the CIA secretly organized and engineered a military coup in Guatemala that ousted the democratically elected Arbenz from power. Schlesinger and Kinzer write:

The United States organized, financed, and equipped the invasion forces. U.S. personnel flew the rebel aircraft and filled the airways with bogus transmissions suggesting a much larger force had invaded. Unrelenting U.S. diplomatic and political pressure encouraged treason and demoralized supporters. CIA assets in the officer corps and the administration worked actively to undermine President Arbenz's authority and block efforts to move against the rebels.

Unaware that the CIA was orchestrating the military coup against him, throughout the crisis Arbenz turned to the U.S. government for help, innocently placing his faith in a government that was purportedly committed to advancing democracy. On Sunday, June 27, 1954, democratically elected President Jacobo Arbenz was ousted from office and fled Guatemala. The CIA replaced him with an unelected Guatemalan military dictator, Col. Carlos Castillo Armas, whom the CIA designated the "Liberator" of the Guatemalan people.

Canceling the presidential election scheduled for 1955 and continuing "emergency" suspension of civil liberties, including freedom of the press, Castillo Armas retained the unwavering support of the U.S. government. A year after taking office, he visited Washington, where he was warmly greeted by Vice President Richard Nixon and, not surprisingly given that he was a military man, was accorded the privilege of reviewing a U.S. military honor guard with Nixon at his side. Nixon visted Guatemala in 1955, declaring that "this is the first instance in history were a Communist
government has been replaced by a free one."

The CIA's new "free" regime lasted for three years. Plagued by corruption, chaos, dissent, and violence, the Castillo Armas regime came to a violent end in 1957, when the CIA's "Liberator" was assassinated by one of his guards, who supposedly committed suicide immediately after killing the president.

Castillo Armas was then followed by a succession of U.S.-approved Guatemalan military regimes, regimes whose military men, over the years, would be trained in torture, assassination, and counter-insurgency techniques at the Pentagon's infamous School of the Americas. The CIA-induced Guatemalan coup and the four decades of brutal, torturous, U.S.-government- supported military rule that came with it precipitated a civil war in Guatemala that would last some 40 years and ultimately take the lives of more than 200,000 Guatemalan people.

In their book Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer write,

The [Historical Clarification Commission], which was headed by a German lawyer, Christian Tomuschat, estimated that the conflict had caused more than 200,000 deaths, and blamed the military for 93 percent of them. In a speech presenting the report, Mr. Tomuschat said that while he and his fellow commissioners knew when they began their work more or less what had happened during the conflict, "no one of us could have imagined the dimensions of this tragedy, not even the Guatemalan commissioners who had lived through the experience directly."

"It is with profound sadness that the commission learned of the extreme cruelty with which many of the violations were committed, of the large number of girls and boys who were victims of violent cruelty and murder, and of the special brutality directed against women, especially against Mayan women, who were tortured, raped and murdered," Mr. Tomuschat said. "State security forces blindly pursued the anti-Communist struggle without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values."

In 1999, President Clinton, visiting Guatemala, candidly admitted, "For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake."

What if the CIA had not intervened in the domestic affairs of Guatemala? What if it hadn't violently ousted its democratically elected president? What if it had not installed a series of brutal U.S.-approved military dictatorships in Guatemala? What if it had simply stayed out of the natural democratic progression in Guatemala, letting regularly scheduled national elections to take place in 1955, one year after the coup? Schlesinger and Kinzer write,

Had Arbenz served out his term, the opposition might well have been strong enough to contest and even win the 1955 elections. Although a distinct minority, the conservative opposition had both money and organized religion on its side.... In short, the democratic option — however uncertain its results — was still open to Guatemalan conservatives in 1954. The U.S. intervention gave them an opportunity to win by opting instead for the security of authoritarian
repression. In taking this path, they condemned their country to four decades of unremitting brutality and violence. The CIA's easy "success" in Iran and Guatemala then drove it to seek
regime change in Cuba, where President Fidel Castro's steadfast refusal to do the bidding of U.S. officials led not only to the Bay of Pigs disaster but also to the U.S. government's 45-year obsession with ousting Castro from power. (While Castro is an unelected communist dictator, it has never been a lack of democracy in Cuba that has driven the U.S. government's obsession with ousting him from power. Instead, the obsession is rooted in Castro's longtime, steadfast commitment to keeping Cuba independent of U.S. government control, unlike other Latin American regimes, both elected and unelected, which consider it an enormous honor and privilege to be well-paid vassals in the U.S. government's vast overseas empire.)

Then, in 1973, faced with the democratic election of another self-avowed socialist in Latin America, Salvador Allende, the CIA supported his violent military ouster and the installation of a military strongman into power, Gen. Augusto Pinochet. I wrote about Pinochet's U.S.-supported 17-year reign of murder, torture, and terror in my recent article "U.S. Regime Change, Torture, and Murder in Chile."

In 1971, after drifting across Europe with his family and then living for a time in Uruguay and Cuba, Jacobo Arbenz died while residing in Mexico. A broken man by that time (his 25-year-old daughter had committed suicide with a revolver in 1965), the official cause of Arbenz's death was that he had died of natural causes (he drowned in his bathtub) but some people had doubts about that explanation.

In 1996, the long Guatemalan civil war, which had its roots in the U.S. government's anti-democracy coup in 1954, finally came to an end with the signing of a peace accord. As Schlesinger and Kinzer put it in the Afterword to the 1999 edition of their book Bitter Fruit, "The longest war in Latin American history had come to an end." But not without a high price, not least of which included the lives of more than 200,000 people and the brutal torture of countless more at the hands of U.S.-supported and Pentagon-trained military regimes.

A deep-seated culture of violence has taken root in Guatemala. Military regimes, army units and police squads have set an awful example, teaching entire generations that terror and murder are appropriate ways to achieve both political and personal ends. For their crimes they have enjoyed nearly complete immunity, as the police and judicial systems exist to serve the unjust ruling order....

[With the signing of the 1996 peace accord] a long and bleak winter has ended in the supposed land of eternal spring, and that is a genuine cause for rejoicing. The terms of public debate have shifted dramatically, with even many conservatives openly accepting the need for change in terms that would have been considered subversive only a few years ago. Now begins the long task of rebuilding a shattered land, not simply politically and economically but also morally. It
will take all the efforts of the long-suffering Guatemalan people, and all the help the outside world can give them, to consolidate the great victory they have won and finally drive a stake through the heart of darkness that terrorized them for so many years.

Since the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials have consistently maintained that foreigners hate "us" because of our "freedom and values." Rather than accepting that official mantra, Americans would be better served by studying the history of the U.S. government's foreign policy, including its anti-democracy "successes" in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, to get a grasp on why so many people around the world hate the U.S. government — and to appreciate why the only solution to
America's woes lies in a dismantling of the interventionist empire that currently holds our nation in its grip and in a restoration of a non-interventionist republic that guided the founding of our nation.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom
Foundation. Send him email.

Fluoride

Fluoride: "'Disreputable and power-hungry persons in high places have been know to experiment with fluoride to see if it could not be used to subjugate the people of a whole community more quickly than fighting them into submission,' according to William Guy Carr, a retired commander from the Royal Canadian Navy.

Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride). Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. Historically it has been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the terrifically insane but highly profitable idea of buying it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then DRINKING it. Yes, a 20,000% markup: Fluoride--intended only for human consumption by people under 14 years of age--is injected into our drinking water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink 1/2 of one percent of the total water supply, the rest literally goes down the drain as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry, where we PAY them so that we can flush their expensive hazardous waste down our toilets."