The Water Cure: An interview with Dr. Batmanghelidj page 0: "Physicians rarely promote the curative properties of H2O, but Dr. Batmanghelidj, M.D. has studied water's effect on the human body and has found it to be one of the best pain relievers and preventative therapies in existence. I was one of the last people to interview the late Dr. Batmanghelidj, and I listened in awe as he shared his research and stories about 'The Healing Power of Water.'
In a fascinating one-hour phone conversation, Dr. B. shares:
• Which common ailments and 'diseases' are actually caused by dehydration
• Why many doctors use water-regulating antihistamines to alleviate pain
• How Dr. Batmanghelidj unintentionally discovered water's healing properties
• Why most people are chronically dehydrated and suffer from symptoms of dehydration that are labeled 'diseases'
• Which ingredients in soft drinks deplete the body's water reserves
• Why thirst is not a reliable indicator of dehydration
• Why the body produces cholesterol and how water keeps it in balance
• Why Dr. Batmanghelidj believes the public is being mislead about AIDS
• How dehydration impairs mental functioning
• Why some organizations want to withhold alternative health information from the public
• How lack of water causes depression
• Why popular beverages are no substitute for water
• How dehydration causes the vascular system to constrict, leading to hypertension
• How to recognize signs that your body is starting to dehydrate
• Why restaurants push you to drink disease-promoting soft drinks
• Why and how water effectively treats pain and inflammation"
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Monsanto Under Investigation
Monsanto Under Investigation by Seven U.S. States
Posted by Dr. Mercola | April 22 2010 | 5,494 views
"At least seven U.S. state attorney generals are investigating whether Monsanto Company has abused its market power to lock out competitors and raise prices on seed," the Organic Consumers Association reports.
This adds to the increasing pressures on the agricultural biotech giant.
The seven states are "probing whether Monsanto violated laws by offering rebates to seed distributors for excluding rival seeds, imposing limits on combining the product with other genetic modifications, or offering cash incentives to switch farmers to more expensive generation of seed varieties."
In addition to that, Monsanto's marketing practices are being reviewed by the US Justice Department, and DuPont Company has accused Monsanto of anti-competitive practices in licensing litigation.
Sources:
Related Links:
How Monsanto Manipulates the System to Poison Your Health
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Pfizer Charged with a Crime, Their Subsidiary Took the Blame
Pfizer Charged with a Crime, Their Subsidiary Took the Blame:
The Feds Cut a Deal with Pfizer
Pfizer did end up getting prosecuted for its fraudulent marketing spree … but their sentence was a mere slap on the wrist. And you won’t hear Pfizer being charged with any crime, because it was actually Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. Inc, a Pfizer subsidiary, that took the rap.
This was not due to an oversight or a smooth move on Pfizer’s part … it was the result of a deal made between Pfizer and federal prosecutors. The feds essentially let Pfizer off the hook so their products could continue to flow through Medicare and Medicaid.
As CNN wrote:
“ … Any company convicted of a major health care fraud is automatically excluded from Medicare and Medicaid. Convicting Pfizer on Bextra would prevent the company from billing federal health programs for any of its products. It would be a corporate death sentence.
Prosecutors said that excluding Pfizer would most likely lead to Pfizer's collapse, with collateral consequences: disrupting the flow of Pfizer products to Medicare and Medicaid recipients, causing the loss of jobs including those of Pfizer employees who were not involved in the fraud, and causing significant losses for Pfizer shareholders.”
So rather than sentencing Pfizer for the massive fraud and deception they carried out with no regard for patients’ health, and letting the company crumble as it should have, the feds decided to protect them.
They allowed Pfizer’s “imaginary friend” Pharmacia & Upjohn to take the conviction, even though the latter company had never sold any drugs. As CNN found, “the subsidiary is nothing more than a shell company whose only function is to plead guilty.”
So Pfizer got off scot-free -- other than a fine that amounted to three months of profits -- had little damage to their reputation and still sells their drugs through federally funded programs.
You Simply Can’t Trust the Government to Keep You Safe
If you are still under the impression that agencies like the FDA are looking out for your safety, it’s time to open your eyes. As in this latest case with Pfizer and Bextra, the federal government has a long history of siding with, and protecting, the drug companies.
It is no surprise when you consider that the drug companies have the largest political lobby and that a job with the FDA is frequently a revolving door with the drug companies. It is very common for many high ranking FDA officials to get lucrative consulting positions with the drug companies after they quit.
The converse is also very common. They can get paid millions before the go to the FDA, like the current commissioner of the FDA Margaret Hamburg did with Henry Schein.
Another case in point, occurred last year when President Obama declared the swine flu outbreak a national emergency, and federal health agencies urged Americans to run out and get vaccinated, or else? The swine flu pandemic is now being called one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century … and it’s another prime example of the partnership between the government and the pharmaceutical industry.
Fortunately, more people are waking up to the illusion and deception of the drug industry as a whole, and starting to clearly see the truth.
The public is correct in their conclusion that drug companies manipulate or suppress negative clinical trials, promote their toxic products for unapproved uses, and focus on developing drugs that are no better than older ones.
Physicians must also, en masse, come to the realization that drug reps cannot be trusted. This may be one of the most difficult areas to change, as the pharmaceutical industry has devised a highly effective system of indoctrination and very specific psychological techniques to manipulate physicians.
Doctors usually believe they are immune to persuasion tactics, and drug reps know just how important it is to maintain that illusion -- which is why it works so well.
Consider for a moment the in-depth report published in both The New England Journal of Medicine and PLoS Medicine, which admitted that pharmaceutical sales reps are trained in tactics that are on par with some of the most potent brainwashing techniques used throughout the world!
The idea that reps provide some kind of valuable, informative service to physicians is total fiction, created and perpetuated by the drug industry, to keep this deadly, but profitable, scheme going.
So until real change takes place, please don't risk your money or your life on a paradigm designed to profit from your ill health. Take control of your health by adopting natural lifestyle strategies that will promote your body’s natural healing abilities without the need for the drug companies’ latest creations.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Life-Cycle Studies: High-Fructose Corn Syrup | Worldwatch Institute
Life-Cycle Studies: High-Fructose Corn Syrup | Worldwatch Institute:
Photo courtesy Archives of OntarioEarly 20th-century label." class="caption" align="" height="207" width="250">For the past five years, Worldwatch has explored the history, production method, and environmental and social impacts of everyday products - from chopsticks to pencils - in the Life-Cycle Studies section of its bi-monthly magazine, World Watch. This print-exclusive content is now available for free to Eye on Earth readers. Look for a new study every Friday! 
Photo courtesy USDAThe environmental impact of high-fructose corn syrup depends on how the corn is grown. " class="caption" align="" height="170" width="250">Impact
Life-Cycle Studies: High-Fructose Corn Syrup
by Ben Block on April 9, 2010Photo courtesy Archives of OntarioEarly 20th-century label." class="caption" align="" height="207" width="250">Photo courtesy Archives of Ontario
Early 20th-century label.Overview
Corn was once a simple food, chewed off the cob. Now, with corn reinvented and transformed, it takes a chemist to recognize all its offspring. Among these is high-fructose corn syrup (a gooey sweetener used in soft drinks, meats, cheeses, and dozens more foods) that appeases confectionary cravings. But recent studies have raised concerns about the syrup by drawing links to obesity and other health effects.
High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), also called isoglucose, is mainly a blend of two sugars, fructose and glucose. Soda and ice cream often blend 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, while the HFCS used in canned fruits and condiments is generally a 42/48 percent mix (with other ingredients). White sugar is a 50/50 split.
In the United States, heavy corn subsidies and sugar-import barriers have made HFCS some 20 percent cheaper than sugar. The United States accounted for nearly 80 percent of global production in 2004 and U.S. consumers swallowed 58 pounds of the syrup per person last year in various products, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Other producers include Japan, Argentina, the European Union, and China.
Production
U.S. refineries discovered in the 1860s that mixing liquefied cornstarch with either acids or enzymes rearranges sugar molecules into a dextrose solution (a form of glucose). Chemists mixed dextrose with additional enzymes in the 1940s for the first batches of HFCS. The syrup was not quite as sweet as sugar itself until 1971, when a Japanese chemist's further tweaking perfected HFCS, according to the Corn Refiners Association.
The food industry began to replace cane and beet sugar with HFCS after sugar prices quadrupled in the 1970s, and a few years later soft-drink companies followed suit. The syrup's affordability in the United States has helped soda companies sell larger bottles and greatly expand consumption of the calorie-rich drinks.
As HFCS spreads to parts of the developing world, dietary concerns are convincing many U.S. consumers to avoid it. In response, a growing number of sweetened products are being reformulated with cane sugar.
Photo courtesy USDAThe environmental impact of high-fructose corn syrup depends on how the corn is grown. " class="caption" align="" height="170" width="250">Photo courtesy USDA
The environmental impact of high-fructose corn syrup depends on how the corn is grown.Some claim that HFCS's global expansion and the parallel increase in obesity are linked. The concerned dietitians argue that, unlike glucose, which triggers appetite-suppressing signals in the body, fructose does not tell its eaters to stop. The theory remains unproven, but a growing body of literature has suggested the syrup may indeed counteract the satiation-hormone leptin. Conflicting research, supported by the American Beverage Institute, insists HFCS is no different than other sweeteners and is "safe in moderation."
The latest health concern stems from a recent Environmental Health study that found mercury in samples from two HFCS manufacturers. Chemicals mixed during production to stabilize pH may have contributed the toxic metal, the study said. The industry accuses the research of using "scant data of questionable quality."
The environmental impact of HFCS depends on how the corn is grown. Conventional farming practices use significant water resources, pesticides, and fertilizers, leading to widespread water pollution and nutrient-depleted soil. Corn production has also become a major contributor to climate change. In The Omnivore's Dilemma, author Michael Pollan estimates that between one-quarter and one-third gallons (about 1.0 to 1.25 liters) of oil are needed per bushel of corn to create the pesticides, fertilizers, and tractor gasoline, and to harvest, dry, and transport the corn. The U.S. high-fructose corn syrup industry used about 490 million bushels of corn last year, according to USDA.
Ben Block is the staff writer for World Watch. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.
For permission to republish this article, please contact Juli Diamond at jdiamond@worldwatch.org.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Fw: FDA Food Tyranny: The Empire Strikes Back!
Fake "Food Safety" Bill S.510 Amended: Can we Trust the FDA? NOT!
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?p=5144
Regulation Courtesy of Kafka
Harkin's S. 510 claims to protect supplements while FDA Creates a Wide-Open Back Door to Destroy Them While We Are Still Celebrating
Not long ago, a form of Vitamin B6 (pryadoxamine) was forbidden by the FDA because a drug company had studied it and wanted to make it into a drug. Never mind that it was protected by the 1994 Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) as a grandfathered item on the "Old Ingredients List". Recently the Fraud and Death Administration said that although we know that it had been in use before DSHEA and WAS on the list found on the FDA website, being on the list was not (hold on to your hats here) proof of being on the list and thus not proof of being grandfathered.
Now, because another drug company wants to make another form of Vitamin B6 into a drug, and it fears, in writing, that people would take the supplement rather than the drug if it were not banned as a supplement, The FDA is considering granting its Citizens Petition to do just that.
Next, walnuts. Because Blue Diamond refers to studies showing that walnuts can be good for you, they have received a letter from the brutal and deeply corrupt FDA stating that giving out that informaton has turned their product, walnuts, into a drug and, as such, it can no longer be sold in the US.
Absurd? Yes. Unexpected? No. This is precisely what we told you the FDA was up to with their insane and wildly dangerous Draft CAM Guidance of just over two years ago. So here is the FDA, not able to promulgate this regulation because 688,000 of you wrote to the FDA saying that this criminalization of knowledge and natural health options was not acceptable to you.
We told you that our victory was significant when they abandoned this guidance, but that they would be back to accomplish the same thing at a later date.
Well, it's later now.
And your food AND your supplements are at tremendous risk. The Food and Death Administration is working hand in glove with Big Agribiz, which is really Big Pharma and Big Chema and Big Biotech all rolled into one, to degrade your food to those ghastly international standards known as Codex Alimentarius.
As always, the Natural Solutions Foundation led the health freedom community in sounding the warning about the fake food and supplement "safety" bills pending before the Senate of the United States. Our supporters have heeded that warning and delivered well over one million messages to Congress demanding NO fake safety bills, while insisting that Congress provide protection for our supplements and natural remedies, not Codex HARMonization to destroy them, as has already happened in Canada and the EU.
Exactly as we predicted and feared, attempts were made to include the worst parts of Senator McCain's dreadful anti supplement S.3002 in a revised effort to get S.510 passed. We saw that one coming, although, once again, others who should have known better, told us we were crazy. Once again, we asked you to message Congress through the Natural Solutions Foundation Action Item. Many hundreds of thousands of emails later, language was inserted into Senator Harkin's gift to Big Agribiz (and, because of the disease this contaminated food will engender, Big Pharma as well) which amended S. 510 to "protect" DSHEA products (that is, to protect dietary supplements). That sounds good ….but it is the same hollow victory that the other health freedom folks trumpeted when S. 3002 was killed - they celebrated and tooted their own horns, but we told you that something was defintitely rotten with this deal. So it was.
Something is rotten with this deal, too. What's rotten is the FDA, which regularly chooses to act outside of, or even in direct opposition to, the law of the land. Why will S. 510 be any different? Would you buy a used car from this agency? AND let's not forget that S. 510 gives Big Argribiz total control of your food suppy.
So While It Would Be Nice to Claim That We Won This Round, It Is Not Completely True - YET!
We Got a Very Partial Stay of Supplement Exterminatin......But That's Not Nearly Good Enough.
Here's what IS good enough: We want natural remedies and holistic techniques (like Holistic Ear Candling, for example) and all natural, local, community, family and farm food production fully protected too… better yet, DEFEAT S.510!
Read more here: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=5144
And take the Action Item here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714
Drug firm investigated FDA officials - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com
Drug firm investigated FDA officials - Eamon Javers - POLITICO.com:
Drug firm investigated FDA officials
For more than two months in late 2008, private investigators working for a drug company gathered information on a high-ranking official at the Food and Drug Administration — unearthing details about her husband, two daughters and in-laws and retracing her steps on a business trip she took to Thailand.
The drug company, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc., paid more than $100,000 to Kroll, the New York-based private investigative firm, to uncover the information about Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, who oversees the agency’s new-drug approvals.
At stake for Amphastar, a generic drug maker, was whether the FDA would allow it to bring to market a version of a prescription drug for blood clots and gain access to a market worth more than $3 billion.
On behalf of the drug company, Kroll also investigated a second FDA official — Moheb Nasr, director of the FDA’s Office of New Drug Quality Assessment, creating a file on him that included his birth date, the price he paid for his home and details of his education and professional background.
Amphastar says the investigation was done in order to find out if Woodcock or Nasr was unfairly favoring a competitor in the drug approval process and that it did nothing wrong.
“I feel like, as a citizen, you have a right to question your government and a right to look at public information,” said Amphastar’s general counsel, Jason Shandell. “There was no impropriety here.”
Shandell said the investigation was limited to public records, database searches and other information available to the general public.
But the case has attracted the attention of investigators working for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who said it was “an outrage” and has demanded that Kroll tell him how often private detectives target public officials. He also had harsh words for Amphastar.
“Pharmaceutical companies should be focusing on getting their drugs approved based on health research and science rather than wasting their resources hiring private investigators to snoop around the lives of FDA regulators and their families,” he said.
The details of the drug company investigation, which came to light after committee investigators requested documents from Amphastar last fall, offer a rare glimpse inside the world of high-stakes corporate detective work.
At one point, the investigators hired a freelance reporter to file Freedom of Information Act requests, using her status as a journalist to request Woodcock’s e-mails, phone records, voice mails, calendars and expense reports, among other documents — without mentioning that she was being paid for her efforts by a private investigative firm.
“I am making this request as a journalist and this information is of timely value,” Melanie Haiken, a San Francisco-based freelance reporter, wrote to the FDA. “As a journalist, I am primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
Haiken did not disclose that she was working for the private investigators at the time. In an e-mail explaining its fees, Kroll told Amphastar that the expenses related to the FOIA covered “the cost of the person we are using to make the requests untraceable to you, the client.”
“I am wondering if this is an isolated instance or if Kroll is using journalists, who purport to be working in the public interest, to file FOIA requests on behalf of clients in order to take advantage of reduced fees and expedited processing,” Baucus wrote in a letter to Kroll CEO Ben Allen.
Woodcock and Nasr did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did the FDA.
Amphastar turned to Kroll in late 2008, after becoming increasingly frustrated that the FDA was dragging its feet in approving the company’s generic-drug application for low-molecular-weight heparin. In addition, the company’s executives became worried that the FDA was favoring a competitor, Massachusetts-based drug manufacturer Momenta Pharmaceuticals, and suspected that Woodcock, the official they blamed for the delays, was somehow allied with Momenta.
As evidence, Amphastar pointed to a paper Woodcock had co-authored with Momenta co-founder Ram Sasisekharan. And, it noted, Woodcock had been a featured speaker along with him at the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok in 2007.
Collusion between FDA officials and drug companies has happened before — a history Amphastar was well aware of when it launched its investigation.
In 1989, three FDA officials pleaded guilty to taking bribes and two companies said they had submitted false information to the government in a scandal that rocked the pharmaceutical world. And that scandal came to light only because an aggrieved drug company had hired private investigators to dig into suspicious relationships.
According to a document titled “Suggested Items for Investigation,” Kroll’s plan for investigating Amphastar included digging up information on “[Janet Woodcock] and her relatives and friends; J.W.’s financial status and lifestyle change since 2004; any entities ... that JW, her relatives or friends partially own or are affiliated with in the U.S.”
Other objectives included determining if Woodcock or any of her family members maintained any Swiss or Cayman Islands bank accounts or companies.
By the end of October 2008, Kroll had completed an “interim report” on Woodcock and Nasr. In it, Kroll detailed Woodcock’s birth date, the state in which her Social Security number had been issued, the identity of her husband, Roger Miller, their home address and the value of her Brookeville, Md., home. Kroll also uncovered similar details about Nasr.
But Kroll had come up empty — finding little evidence of an improper connection.
“To date, Kroll has identified no reports indicating that Woodcock’s relationships with Nasr [and another individual] are anything but of a professional nature,” Kroll concluded. “Kroll has identified no personal or business links with the Sasisekharan family other than Woodcock and Ram Sasisekharan’s well-publicized, jointly authored reports.”
But despite the report, Amphastar in April 2009 filed a complaint with the FDA, alleging that Woodcock and Momenta had an improper connection.
“Sure, we don’t have a smoking gun,” Shandell said, “but there appears to be some relationship between these two that goes beyond the typical FDA relationship.”
The FDA’s legal counsel, however, said in February that Woodcock’s interactions with Momenta did not constitute a conflict of interest.
Rick Shea, the chief financial officer for Momenta, also said his company acted properly in its interactions with the FDA. “There certainly was no inappropriate relationship between anybody at Momenta or anybody associated with Momenta and anybody at the FDA,” Shea said.
Haiken, the freelance journalist, confirms that she filed the FOIA on behalf of Kroll. But Haiken said her intent was journalistic and that she hoped the FOIAs would yield an interesting story. “I’m not really an investigator, I’m a health writer,” she said. “I have a right to get a story tip from somebody, even if it’s somebody at Kroll.”
Individual investigators inside Kroll billed for their time like lawyers, with rates ranging from $125 to $390 per hour. By the end of November, the company had charged Amphastar more than $100,000. Its invoice included $596.25 for “calls to Thailand regarding Woodcock’s hotel stay. Further research on … conference participants and board members. Further research on Woodcock schedule prior to and after the conference.”
Kroll also sent Amphastar a memo titled “Woodcock/Miller Family Members.” That document detailed the biography of Woodcock’s husband and information about the couple’s two daughters.
An outside public relations consultant for Kroll issued a statement in response to POLITICO’s questions about its investigation.
“We have received Senator Baucus’s letter and will review the request, bearing in mind our obligations to our client and client confidentiality,” Kroll said.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
Drug firm investigated FDA officials
For more than two months in late 2008, private investigators working for a drug company gathered information on a high-ranking official at the Food and Drug Administration — unearthing details about her husband, two daughters and in-laws and retracing her steps on a business trip she took to Thailand.
The drug company, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc., paid more than $100,000 to Kroll, the New York-based private investigative firm, to uncover the information about Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, who oversees the agency’s new-drug approvals.
At stake for Amphastar, a generic drug maker, was whether the FDA would allow it to bring to market a version of a prescription drug for blood clots and gain access to a market worth more than $3 billion.
On behalf of the drug company, Kroll also investigated a second FDA official — Moheb Nasr, director of the FDA’s Office of New Drug Quality Assessment, creating a file on him that included his birth date, the price he paid for his home and details of his education and professional background.
Amphastar says the investigation was done in order to find out if Woodcock or Nasr was unfairly favoring a competitor in the drug approval process and that it did nothing wrong.
“I feel like, as a citizen, you have a right to question your government and a right to look at public information,” said Amphastar’s general counsel, Jason Shandell. “There was no impropriety here.”
Shandell said the investigation was limited to public records, database searches and other information available to the general public.
But the case has attracted the attention of investigators working for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who said it was “an outrage” and has demanded that Kroll tell him how often private detectives target public officials. He also had harsh words for Amphastar.
“Pharmaceutical companies should be focusing on getting their drugs approved based on health research and science rather than wasting their resources hiring private investigators to snoop around the lives of FDA regulators and their families,” he said.
The details of the drug company investigation, which came to light after committee investigators requested documents from Amphastar last fall, offer a rare glimpse inside the world of high-stakes corporate detective work.
At one point, the investigators hired a freelance reporter to file Freedom of Information Act requests, using her status as a journalist to request Woodcock’s e-mails, phone records, voice mails, calendars and expense reports, among other documents — without mentioning that she was being paid for her efforts by a private investigative firm.
“I am making this request as a journalist and this information is of timely value,” Melanie Haiken, a San Francisco-based freelance reporter, wrote to the FDA. “As a journalist, I am primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
Haiken did not disclose that she was working for the private investigators at the time. In an e-mail explaining its fees, Kroll told Amphastar that the expenses related to the FOIA covered “the cost of the person we are using to make the requests untraceable to you, the client.”
“I am wondering if this is an isolated instance or if Kroll is using journalists, who purport to be working in the public interest, to file FOIA requests on behalf of clients in order to take advantage of reduced fees and expedited processing,” Baucus wrote in a letter to Kroll CEO Ben Allen.
Woodcock and Nasr did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did the FDA.
Amphastar turned to Kroll in late 2008, after becoming increasingly frustrated that the FDA was dragging its feet in approving the company’s generic-drug application for low-molecular-weight heparin. In addition, the company’s executives became worried that the FDA was favoring a competitor, Massachusetts-based drug manufacturer Momenta Pharmaceuticals, and suspected that Woodcock, the official they blamed for the delays, was somehow allied with Momenta.
As evidence, Amphastar pointed to a paper Woodcock had co-authored with Momenta co-founder Ram Sasisekharan. And, it noted, Woodcock had been a featured speaker along with him at the Shangri-La Hotel in Bangkok in 2007.
Collusion between FDA officials and drug companies has happened before — a history Amphastar was well aware of when it launched its investigation.
In 1989, three FDA officials pleaded guilty to taking bribes and two companies said they had submitted false information to the government in a scandal that rocked the pharmaceutical world. And that scandal came to light only because an aggrieved drug company had hired private investigators to dig into suspicious relationships.
According to a document titled “Suggested Items for Investigation,” Kroll’s plan for investigating Amphastar included digging up information on “[Janet Woodcock] and her relatives and friends; J.W.’s financial status and lifestyle change since 2004; any entities ... that JW, her relatives or friends partially own or are affiliated with in the U.S.”
Other objectives included determining if Woodcock or any of her family members maintained any Swiss or Cayman Islands bank accounts or companies.
By the end of October 2008, Kroll had completed an “interim report” on Woodcock and Nasr. In it, Kroll detailed Woodcock’s birth date, the state in which her Social Security number had been issued, the identity of her husband, Roger Miller, their home address and the value of her Brookeville, Md., home. Kroll also uncovered similar details about Nasr.
But Kroll had come up empty — finding little evidence of an improper connection.
“To date, Kroll has identified no reports indicating that Woodcock’s relationships with Nasr [and another individual] are anything but of a professional nature,” Kroll concluded. “Kroll has identified no personal or business links with the Sasisekharan family other than Woodcock and Ram Sasisekharan’s well-publicized, jointly authored reports.”
But despite the report, Amphastar in April 2009 filed a complaint with the FDA, alleging that Woodcock and Momenta had an improper connection.
“Sure, we don’t have a smoking gun,” Shandell said, “but there appears to be some relationship between these two that goes beyond the typical FDA relationship.”
The FDA’s legal counsel, however, said in February that Woodcock’s interactions with Momenta did not constitute a conflict of interest.
Rick Shea, the chief financial officer for Momenta, also said his company acted properly in its interactions with the FDA. “There certainly was no inappropriate relationship between anybody at Momenta or anybody associated with Momenta and anybody at the FDA,” Shea said.
Haiken, the freelance journalist, confirms that she filed the FOIA on behalf of Kroll. But Haiken said her intent was journalistic and that she hoped the FOIAs would yield an interesting story. “I’m not really an investigator, I’m a health writer,” she said. “I have a right to get a story tip from somebody, even if it’s somebody at Kroll.”
Individual investigators inside Kroll billed for their time like lawyers, with rates ranging from $125 to $390 per hour. By the end of November, the company had charged Amphastar more than $100,000. Its invoice included $596.25 for “calls to Thailand regarding Woodcock’s hotel stay. Further research on … conference participants and board members. Further research on Woodcock schedule prior to and after the conference.”
Kroll also sent Amphastar a memo titled “Woodcock/Miller Family Members.” That document detailed the biography of Woodcock’s husband and information about the couple’s two daughters.
An outside public relations consultant for Kroll issued a statement in response to POLITICO’s questions about its investigation.
“We have received Senator Baucus’s letter and will review the request, bearing in mind our obligations to our client and client confidentiality,” Kroll said.
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Geneva Conventions Redefined – Part 1: The New U.S Department of War
Geneva Conventions Redefined – Part 1: The New U.S Department of War
Posted on April 12, 2010 by Barbara Peterson
By Lt. Eric Shine USNR – USMMRR/ USMMA KP
Most people are unaware of a larger picture developing over the course of the past seven or eight decades, or somehow they are willingly choosing to ignore it. This still-developing image portrays matters requiring a greater knowledge of world history, a higher degree of self-education and a more global perspective to recognize and decipher.
Probably the most remarkable change occurring and still underway is a complete militarization of everything in the United States, if not around the world. The most disturbing sign of this breach of civilian commons today by the military, comes in the form of or the creation, or should I say recreation, as it had once been known up and until 1946, of a new or at least reinvigorated Department of War, which is no longer a “Department of Defense,” to ward off foreign invasion.
The War Department existed from 1789 until September 18, 1947, when it was renamed initially as the Department of the Army, then became part of the new, joint National Military Establishment (NME). Shortly thereafter, in 1949, the NME was finally converted to the Department of Defense. The Department of War was organized for war (offense) and not for defense. The interrelated and end result of this today, is the creation of the newly founded Department of Homeland Security, which was to be originally dubbed the Department of Homeland Defense to allow the long-standing Department of Defense to once again go on the offensive.
One of the main reasons for this change was in response to the latest batch of International Geneva Conventions from the 1940s in the wake of World War II, that outlawed offensive wars, or wars of aggression.
Fast forward to today in 2010, and all of this is being reversed, intentionally. One thing that is clear is the Geneva Conventions that came about in aftermath of two horrendous World Wars are under attack here at home and have been since at least the late 1990s. The metamorphosis now of our Department of Defense back into a Department of War somehow is one of a number of intended and directed results. Former President George W. Bush accelerated these attacks from under his administration and to the point that our own soldiers were in jeopardy of no longer being protected by these conventions. This earth-shattering change of state is irreconcilable with our Constitution or foundational system of civilian self-governance and is largely unnoticed by 97 % of our citizenry.
Integral to this, is the creation of what was originally dubbed the Department of Homeland Defense as put in effect in 2003, which was done to allow the long-standing Department of Defense to expand exponentially and once again go on the offensive. Most know it now as the Department of Homeland Security [DHS]. This was the actual splitting in two of the Department of Defense and the movement of military law, or a form of martial law into the DHS. This is coupled with outsourcing and contracting of everyday duties to a private army of support personnel to cook, clean, move, transport and do all sorts of things our military personnel used to do for themselves without any associated profit margin attached to these efforts. This has been done to grow the army basically overnight without garnering much attention.
First, to look at all of this more critically, we must jump back in time to the Nuremburg Trials and subsequent International Conventions outlawing wars of aggression by one Nation-State upon another. These International Conventions incorporated by almost all Nations maintained a level of law, order and peace, albeit imperfect, by outlawing and hoping to forever prevent what Germany had done in provoking and attacking other European countries, as well as forever entrenching all existing National and International borders that were in place at the time as well.
Wars involving Germany, World War I and World War II were not defensive wars in order to protect a Nation-State from a foreign aggressor, or repel invasion from an aggressor, but were instead aggressive wars of conquest.
One must travel back further and revisit our own Constitution, and systems of self defense designed therein, then come forward observing changes in legal and political climates, both within the U.S. and the World over the past 200 years or so to understand just how troublesome this all is. In America – home of the Free and the Brave, we are now moving backward to a time much like medieval Europe where Privy Councils and Star Chambers were employed to terrorize people and maintain a darkness that had enveloped Europe. These councils or courts were run chiefly by military forces, and not for independent judiciary, or what most would equate to military tribunals.
Fast forward once again back to the lead up to the war in Iraq and into today. Whilst thinking along these lines one cannot forget that the Gulf War in the 1980s and into the 1990s was started by the Administration of the first President Bush, George H.W. Bush.
Closer to today, and just prior to the launch of the War in Iraq on March 18th, 2003, the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was consummated, but few to this day understand what it is or what it is intended to become or foster.
As stated, the Department of Homeland Security was originally to be called the Department of Homeland Defense. Everything lies in a name. As in much of this, the “Powers that Be” decided this might be too obvious in exposing what they were doing and someone might just ask; Do we really need two Departments of Defense? This rationale runs along the same vein of thought in naming the Iraq War’s operational name Operation Iraqi Liberation, or O.I.L. for short, doing this initially as a Freudian Slip of sorts, then naming it Operation Iraqi Freedom instead. The problem with this is that the O.I.L. acronym itself was simply a more sophisticated form of CO-INTEL PRO – a smokescreen so people would believe the wars were really only about oil. They are not.
They are about much more than just oil, but oil is a part of it. These wars are about changing the definition of politics, religion, history and yes of course, even business. This much bigger agenda has been in development for sometime now.
By creating a Department of Homeland Security in 2003, supposedly in response to 9-11, the global Military – Industrial – Banking – Religious – Congressional complex was unconstrained to finally change the Department of Defense back to a Department of War – a Department of Offense to carry out Wars of Aggression once again, as it then had a replacement for the Department of Defense in the newly founded Department of Homeland Security.
This conversion and splitting of the Department of Defense into two separate, distinct entities was to foster expansion and militarization of everything, and to seize upon all civilian jurisdictions and authorities, dong so under the Executive Branch’s Constitutional prerogative within Admiralty.
So clearly, since at least 2003 we have a Department of Defense that is actually now instead our Department of War by defect or default, seen clearly in its actions. It is now carrying on wars of aggression abroad. Plus, we have a Department of Homeland Security that is in effect and intended to become our new Department of [Homeland] Defense. The problem is that the new Department of War, although without a more official name change to date, is for carrying on wars of foreign aggression and subjugating peoples from other lands.
The new Department of Defense has been incorporated to work domestically alongside groups like Infragard, Blackwater; Triple Canopy; Integrated Coast Guard Systems; Lockheed – Martin; General Electric; Sea Launch; Fox and others – not to somehow defend us against the invading Al Queda, Arab, or Persian Navies hearkening back to Athens, but instead to carry on the same levels of oppression and even creation of civilian laws from underneath the military as imposed by a military dictatorship right here in the U.S.
President Obama is carrying on in the same vein that King George II had us on, even accelerating beyond what both Bushes carried out. Obama’s behavior and track record in the use of military tribunals is more perverse, less rational and in strong contrast to controlling Supreme Court case law on it. This has accelerated to where he is now pursing prosecution of “terrorists” down several divergent pathways.
What makes this total militarization of all that matters more obvious, is the movement of Military Law [as actually a form of martial law] out of the Department of Defense into the Department of Homeland Security. This of course, occurred under the cover of launching war in March 2003. This is much like, but much more subtle and thus more dangerous, as when Augustus under arms marched across the Rubicon in 49 B.C. and seized control of the Roman Republic with his Legionairres as military forces.
(C) 2010 Lt. Eric Shine USNR – USMMRR/ USMMA KP
Filed under: Martial Law | Tagged: department of homeland security, department of war, eric shine, Martial Law, military
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Big Bucks at Stake
GM Crops Yield Unimpressive Results
How Can YOU Stop Monsanto from Ruling, and Ruining, the Food Supply?