what internet

ONENESS, On truth connecting us all: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7421476B2

Saturday, March 23, 2024

Where was the drug industry started?

 The Holocaust genocide committed by the German Nazi regime, by facilitating the regime's generation and tabulation of punch cards for national census data, military logistics, ghetto statistics, train traffic management, and concentration camp capacity.[1]

Summary

In the early 1880s, Herman Hollerith (1860–1929), a young employee at the U.S. Census Bureau, conceived of the idea of creating readable cards with standardized perforations, each representing specific individual traits such as gender, nationality, and occupation. The millions of punched cards created for the population counted in the national census could then be sorted on the basis of specific bits of information they contained—thereby providing a quantified portrait of the nation and its citizens.[2]: 25  A circuit-closing device was used to electromagnetically record the data represented by the perforations. The technology enabled searching for individuals using the traits as search terms.[3]

In 1910, the German licensee Willy Heidinger established the Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft (German Hollerith Machine Corporation), known by the abbreviation "Dehomag".[2]: 30  The next year, Hollerith sold his American business to industrialist Charles Flint (1850–1934) for US$1.41 million(equivalent to $44.3 million in 2022).[2]: 31  The counting machine operation was made part of a new conglomerate called the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR).[2]: 31  Flint chose Thomas J. Watson (1874–1956), the star salesman of the National Cash Register Corporation, to head the new operation.[2]: 38–39  In 1923,[4] the German licensee Dehomag became a direct subsidiary of the American corporation CTR.[2]: 44  In 1924, Watson assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer of CTR and renamed the company International Business Machines (IBM).

Black details an ongoing business relationship between Watson's IBM and the emerging German regime headed by Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist German Workers Party(NSDAP). Hitler came to power in January 1933; on March 20 of that same year he established a concentration camp for political prisoners in the Bavarian town of Dachau, just outside the city of Munich. Repression against political opponents and the country's ethnic Jewish population began immediately. By April 1933, some 60,000 had been imprisoned.[2]: 44–45  Business relations between IBM and the Hitler regime continued uninterrupted in the face of broad international calls for an economic boycott.[2]: 45 Willy Heidinger, who remained the chief executive of Dehomag, the German subsidiary of which IBM owned 90%, was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hitler regime.[2]: 50 

On April 12, 1933, the German government announced plans to conduct a long-delayed national census.[2]: 54  The project was particularly important to the Nazis as a mechanism for the identification of Jews, Roma, and other ethnic groups deemed undesirable by the regime. Dehomag offered to assist the German government in its task of ethnic identification, focusing upon the 41 million residents of Prussia.[2]: 55  This activity was not only countenanced by Thomas Watson and IBM in America, Black argues, but was actively encouraged and financially supported, with Watson himself traveling to Germany in October 1933 and the company ramping up its investment in its German subsidiary from 400,000 to 7,000,000 Reichsmark—about $1 million (equivalent to $22.6 million in 2022).[2]: 60  This injection of American capital allowed Dehomag to purchase land in Berlinand to construct IBM's first factory in Germany, Black charges, thereby "tooling up for what it correctly saw as a massive financial relationship with the Hitler regime".[2]: 60 

Black also cites documents regarding a "secret deal" that was made between Heidinger and Watson during the latter's visit to Germany which allowed Dehomag commercial powers outside of Germany, enabling the "now Nazified" company to "circumvent and supplant" various national subsidiaries and licensees by "soliciting and delivering punch card solution technology directly to IBM customers in those territories".[2]: 61  As a result, Nazi Germany soon became the second most important customer of IBM after the lucrative U.S. market.[2]: 110  The 1933 census, with design help and tabulation services provided by IBM through its German subsidiary, proved to be pivotal to the Nazis in their efforts to identify, isolate, and ultimately destroy the country's Jewish minority. Machine-tabulated census data greatly expanded the estimated number of Jews in Germany by identifying individuals with only one or a few Jewish ancestors. Previous estimates of 400,000 to 600,000 were abandoned for a new estimate of 2 million Jews in the nation of 65 million.[2]: 110 

As the Nazi war machine occupied successive nations of Europe, capitulation was followed by a census of the population of each subjugated nation, with an eye to the identification and isolation of Jews and Romani. These census operations were intimately intertwined with technology and cards supplied by IBM's German and new Polish subsidiaries, which were awarded specific sales territories in Poland by decision of the New Yorkoffice following Germany's successful Blitzkrieg invasion.[2]: 193 Data generated by means of counting and alphabetization equipment supplied by IBM through its German and other national subsidiaries was instrumental in the efforts of the German government to concentrate and ultimately destroy ethnic Jewish populations across Europe.[2]: 198  Black reports that every Nazi concentration camp maintained its own Hollerith-Abteilung(Hollerith Department), assigned with keeping tabs on inmates through use of IBM's punchcard technology.[2]: 351  In his book, Black charges that "without IBM's machinery, continuing upkeep and service, as well as the supply of punch cards, whether located on-site or off-site, Hitler's camps could have never managed the numbers they did."[2]: 352 

Major changes were made for the 2002 paperback editions on Three Rivers Press/Time Warner Paperbacks[5][6][7] and the 2012 expanded edition on Dialog Press.[8] In the updated 2002 paperback edition, the author included new evidence of the connection between IBM's United States headquarters and its Polish subsidiary during Nazi occupation.[5][6][7] In 2012 Black published a second expanded revision with more documents. The 2012 expanded edition provides 32 pages of new photographic and documentary evidence.[8]

IBM's post-invasion Polish subsidiary

A revised 2002 paperback edition provides additional evidence that IBM New York established a special subsidiary in Polandcalled Watson Business Machines to deal with railway traffic in the General Government. Edwin Black asserts that IBM did so after the September 1, 1939 Invasion of Poland by Germany, and continued this business relationship during the Holocaust in Poland. Watson Business Machines operated a punch card printing shop near the Warsaw Ghetto.[5]

In a 2002 editorial in the SFGate, Black documented that this Polish subsidiary reported to IBM Geneva which in turn reported to IBM New York. Black further states that IBM's European general manager reported directly to Thomas Watson Sr., that some machines in Poland were sent to Romania to assist in the Jewish census there, and that these Polish machines were later replaced.[6]

In his book, Black quotes Leon Krzemieniecki, the last surviving person involved in the administration of the rail transportation to Auschwitz and Treblinka, as stating he knew the punched card machines were not German machines, because the labels were in English. Black details how income from the machines leased in Poland was sent through Geneva to IBM in New York.[5][6]

Ongoing sales

Edwin Black details how IBM not only leased Nazi Germany the machines, but then provided continuous maintenance service, and sold the spare parts and the special paper needed for the customized punch cards.[9]

No machines were sold – only leased. IBM was the sole source of all punch cards and spare parts. It serviced the machines on site either directly or through its authorized dealer network or field trainees. There were no universal punch cards. Each series of cards was custom-designed by IBM engineers to capture information going in and to tabulate information the Nazis wanted to extract. 

— Edwin Black, on updates in 2002[6]

After the publication of the 2012 expanded edition, he wrote for the Huffington Post, "The punch cards, machinery, training, servicing, and special project work, such as population census and identification, was managed directly by IBM headquarters in New York, and later through its subsidiaries in Germany, known as Deutsche Hollerith-Maschinen Gesellschaft (DEHOMAG), Poland, The Netherlands, France, Switzerland, and other European countries." He added that the punch cards bore the indicia of the German subsidiary Dehomag.[10]

Reception

IBM's response

Though IBM has never directly denied any of the evidence posed by the book, it has criticized Black's research methods and accusatory conclusions.[11] IBM claimed it does not have any other information about the company during its World War II period or the operations of Dehomag, as it argued most documents were destroyed or lost during the war.[12]

IBM also claimed that an earlier dismissed lawsuit, initiated by lawyers representing concentration camp survivors, was filed in 2001 to coincide with Black's book launch.[12] Lawyers for the Holocaust victims acknowledged the timing of the lawsuit to coincide with Black's book release, explaining their public relations strategies played an important role in their record of achieving Nazi-era settlements totaling more than $7 billion without winning a judgment.[13]

After the publication of Black's updated 2002 paperback edition, IBM responded by stating it wasn't convinced there were any new findings and there was no proof IBM had enabled the Holocaust.[5][7] IBM rejected Black's assertion that IBM was hiding information and records regarding its World War II era.[14]Several years previously, IBM had given its corporate records of the period to academic archives in New York and Stuttgart, Germany, for review by undefined "independent scholars".[7]

In early 2021, Black published the 20th anniversary edition with special public events and a syndicated article stating that in twenty years, "not a comma has been changed", adding that "IBM has never requested a correction or denied any facts in the book."[15][16][17]

Wikipedia editing controversy

In 2010, Black reported on unidentified Wikipedia editors marginalizing his research on IBM's role in the Holocaust.[18] It is not clear whether the editors involved were IBM employees, but Black states that, "[they were] openly fortified by official IBM corporate archivist Paul Lasewicz using his real name, and others"; Black nevertheless calls Lasewicz a "man of integrity" and points out that he deferred taking the lead because of potential conflict of interest and then recused himself entirely.[19][20]

References

  1.  Preston, Peter (February 18, 2001). "Six million and counting". The Observer. guardian.co.uk. Retrieved June 14, 2001.
  2.  Black, Edwin (2009) [2001]. IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation (Paperback) (Second ed.). Washington, DC: Dialog Press. OCLC 958727212.
  3.  Jefferson, Brian (2020). Digitize and Punish: Racial Criminalization in the Digital Age. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. p. 20.
  4.  Elkin, Larry M. "IBM: A Centenarian's Imperfect But Impressive Recall". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  5.  Burkeman, Oliver (March 29, 2002). "IBM 'dealt directly with Holocaust organisers'". The Guardian . guardian.co.uk. Retrieved July 31, 2017.
  6.  Black, Edwin (May 19, 2002). "The business of making the trains to Auschwitz run on time". Editorial. SFGate. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 31, 2017.
  7.  Grace, Francie (March 27, 2002). "IBM And Nazi Germany: Researcher Has New Documents On World War II Conduct". CBS News.
  8.  "Edwin Black Seeks to Prove IBM's Involvement in Holocaust". William S. Boyd School of Law. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. November 13, 2012. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  9.  Beatty, Jack (April 2001). "Hitler's Willing Business Partners". The Atlantic. Retrieved October 2, 2021.
  10.  Black, Edwin (2012). "IBM's Role in the Holocaust — What the New Documents Reveal". Huffington Post. Retrieved October 23,2017.
  11.  Bazyler, Michael J. (2005). Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America's Courts. New York: New York University Press. p. 303.
  12.  IBM Press Room (February 14, 2001). "IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit". Press Release. Armonk, New York.
  13.  Feder, Barnaby (February 11, 2001). "Lawsuit Says I.B.M. Aided The Nazis In Technology". The New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
  14.  IBM Press Room (March 29, 2002). "Addendum to IBM Statement on Nazi-era Book and Lawsuit". Press Release. Armonk, New York. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved July 13,2021.
  15.  Black, Edwin (February 8, 2021). "IBM and the Holocaust — 20 Years of Corporate Denial". The Times of Israel.
  16.  Black, Edwin (February 8, 2021). "IBM and the Holocaust—20 years of corporate denial". Israel National News.
  17.  Black, Edwin. "Barnes & Noble Launch Event for IBM and the Holocaust hardcover 2021 re-issue | The Edwin Black Show". The Edwin Black Show.
  18.  Black, Edwin (April 12, 2010). "Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge". The Cutting Edge News. Archived from the original on January 31, 2018. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
  19.  Black, Edwin (April 12, 2010). "Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge". Editorial. History News Network. George Washington University. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
  20.  Barillas, Martin (April 9, 2010). "Martin Barillas: Wikipedia Blocks Users in Response to Edwin Black Article". History News Network. Retrieved May 24, 2019.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, March 15, 2024

AVOID all Processed Foods to Survive 2100

Ultrapasteurized Milk Is Harmful to Your Health

According to Parmalat,5 which sells ultrapasteurized milk in Europe, the product is “the same as fresh milk” and “contains a lot of nutrients that are good for your body, just like fresh milk.” Scientific studies, however, strongly suggest otherwise.

For example, a 2019 study6 from China found that all forms of milk processing tested caused “formation of protein oxidation products which impair spatial learning and memory in rats.” That includes boiling, microwave heating, spray drying and freeze-drying, and as noted by Fallon, ultrapasteurization exposes the milk to far higher heat than boiling (284 F compared to 212 F). So, clearly, ultrapasteurized milk doesn’t even come close to real milk.

“All four techniques (even freeze-drying) caused ‘various degrees of redox state imbalance and oxidative damage in plasma, liver, and brain tissues,’” Fallon writes.7 “Feeding damaged milk proteins to rats resulted in learning and memory impairment — why would any parent want to give UHT [ultra-high temperature] milk to their kids?”

According to the authors of that study, the industry ought to “control milk protein oxidation and improve the processing methods applied to food.” Other researchers have come to similar conclusions.

A 2021 study8 in the journal Polymers noted that “The major protein modifications that occur during UHT treatment are denaturation and aggregation of the protein, and chemical modifications of its amino acids.”

Damaged milk proteins may contribute to allergic reactions, Fallon notes, and milk allergy is now commonplace. According to the Asthma and Allergy Network, an estimated 20 Americans die each year from anaphylactic shock caused by conventional milk9 — a shocking reminder of just how far modern milk has strayed from real, raw milk, which rarely causes any allergic reactions.

Download this Article Before it Disappears

Download PDF

One-Third of Conventional Milk Contains Risky Contaminants

Nonorganic pasteurized milk also has other downsides. Aside from potentially hazardous pathogens, conventional milk has also been found to contain a variety of drugs and agricultural chemicals, including:10,11

  • Antibiotics such as amoxicillin, oxytetracycline and sulfadimethoxine, as well as sulfathiazole and sulfamethazine, both of which are banned for use in dairy production due to human health concerns, which include acute and potentially life-threatening allergic reactions.12
  • Pesticides such as chlorpyrifos (an insecticide known to disrupt brain development and cause brain damage, neurological abnormalities, reduced IQ and aggressiveness in children), atrazine (linked to reproductive harm in animals, birth defects and cancer), diazinon, cypermethrin and permethrin (a synthetic pyrethroid13 insecticide linked to behavior problems in children).

None of these pesticides and antibiotics were found in organic milk samples, however. As noted by the authors:14

“Among the conventional samples, residue levels exceeded federal limits for amoxicillin in one sample (3%) and in multiple samples for sulfamethazine (37%) and sulfathiazole (26%). Median bGH and IGF-1 concentrations in conventional milk were 9·8 and 3·5 ng/ml, respectively, twenty and three times that in organic samples …

Current-use antibiotics and pesticides were undetectable in organic but prevalent in conventionally produced milk samples, with multiple samples exceeding federal limits. Higher bGH and IGF-1 levels in conventional milk suggest the presence of synthetic growth hormone.”

Why You Shouldn’t Avoid Milk

While it may sound as though avoiding milk altogether might be your best bet, that’s not the case at all. As detailed in “The Amazing Benefits of Dairy Fat,” whole or full-fat dairy contains the odd-chain saturated fats (OCFAs) pentadecanoic acid (C15:0) and heptadecanoic acid (C17:0), which have significant health benefits.

These OCFAs are primarily found in dairy fat, and your body cannot make C15:0, so you must get it from your diet. This fat is so beneficial that researchers now speculate that it may be an overlooked essential fat. Higher circulating levels of OCFAs in the blood is associated with lower risks of obesity, chronic inflammation, cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Type 2 diabetes, NASH, COPD, pancreatic cancer and all-cause mortality.

And, importantly, OCFAs do not have an inhibitory effect on glucose burning because they are not converted to acetyl-CoA; rather, they enter the Krebs Cycle as succinyl-CoA. What this means in practical terms is that you don’t need to restrict your consumption of full fat dairy, as it won’t affect your ability to burn glucose.

Raw organic grass fed milk also has important immune-boosting benefits. According to a 2015 study15 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, children who drank raw organic grass fed milk had 30% lower rates of viral and respiratory tract infections, including regular colds, then those who drink ultrapasteurized milk. So, milk can indeed “do your body good,” as the old marketing slogan used to say, but you must drink the right kind of milk.

Organic Raw Grass Fed Milk Is the Safest Option

The healthiest and safest variety of milk is raw, unpasteurized milk sourced from organically raised, grass fed or pastured cows. Contrary to widespread belief, raw milk is significantly less likely to harbor hazardous bacteria linked to foodborne illness compared to pasteurized counterparts.

Despite assertions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration16 and the USDA17 regarding the increased health risks associated with raw milk consumption, empirical evidence from foodborne illness data contradicts these claims. According to an investigation by Dr. Ted Beals,18 the likelihood of falling ill from raw milk is 35,000 times lower than from other food sources.

Similarly, a 2012 investigation by Mark McAfee, CEO of Organic Pastures Dairy — which included a FOIA request to the CDC for data on deaths claimed to be related to raw milk — revealed:19

  • Zero deaths attributed to raw milk consumption in California over a 37-year span
  • The two deaths the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists as being related to raw milk were actually due to illegal Mexican bathtub cheese, and not raw milk produced in the U.S.
  • The last people to die from milk died from contaminated pasteurized milk
  • According to a Cornell study which used CDC data, 1,100 illnesses were linked to raw milk between 1973 and 2009. Meanwhile, 422,000 illnesses were traced back to pasteurized milk. And, while no one died from raw milk, at least 50 Americans died from pasteurized milk or pasteurized cheese

Both FDA and USDA caution against the potential presence of disease-causing bacteria in raw milk, yet fail to acknowledge that these pathogens stem from industrial farming practices, which contribute to animal health issues. Animals raised on pasture under healthier conditions typically do not harbor harmful levels of pathogenic bacteria.

Their cautionary stance on raw milk consumption would only be warranted if explicitly targeting unpasteurized milk from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where risks are indeed elevated. Raw organic grass fed milk, when handled according to proper sanitary protocols, seldom poses health hazards as organic dairy farms are mandated to adhere to stringent guidelines, enhancing safety measures.


Sources and References
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 11, 2024

we CAN shift the world with our behavior

Endgame: Global Monopolization

One fact that many don't realize is just how few firms control the global food system, from seeds to supermarkets. As noted by Howard:

"The trend in most industries is for fewer and fewer firms to increase their power. One really dramatic example is the beer industry. Four firms headquartered in Europe brew about half the world's beer. That's going to go down to three very soon, because Anheuser-Busch InBev is acquiring SABMiller.

Even if you're a very dominant firm, you're caught up in this system where you have to get bigger or become acquired by your big competitors. But it's resulting in less and less people making decisions about the food we eat. There's even speculation that InBev is not increasing its sales enough, even with this acquisition, so they're going to have to acquire a big soft drink firm, perhaps even Coke or Pepsi."

With its $103 billion acquisition of SABMiller, InBev became one of the three largest food firms in the world. InBev also owns Anheuser-Busch, which produces Budweiser, one of the most well-known beer brands in the world. In some parts of the world, such as in Africa and Latin America, InBev has already established a monopoly.

Antitrust rules and regulations enacted by the federal government are meant to prevent these types of monopolies. In fact, when large corporations want to buy other large corporations, a rigorous evaluation process is required before they're authorized to merge. So how is it that this kind of monopoly-building is still happening? Howard explains:

"In the early 1900s, there were a number of laws passed to prevent these trusts, these combinations that resulted in monopolies in these markets. That changed dramatically beginning in the 1980s. Reagan was elected. He directed the heads of federal agencies to take a very different view toward mergers and acquisitions.

At the same time, federal judges were being indoctrinated into the Chicago School of Economics. They got paid to go on these junkets to Arizona, Florida, places like that. They played golf. Then they attended these seminars where they were taught mergers and acquisitions that, unless they immediately raised prices for consumers, were good for everyone.

As a result of just one of those programs, by the early '90s, two-thirds of federal judges had participated. It's essentially impossible to win an antitrust case in the federal courts now."

Concentration in the US Beer Industry

Monopolies Do Not Benefit the Public

The truth is, monopolies really only benefit the corporations in question, not the population at large. It merely reinforces the company's power, including their political clout. Many multinational corporate executives even serve on federal advisory committees and global trade agreement working groups.

Some of these international trade deals are kept secret even from the U.S. Congress, yet executives from large multinational firms are present during the negotiations. When large companies are able to influence the very regulatory agencies that are chartered to regulate them, they're able to circumvent the regulatory process, forming what is essentially a cartel.

"A good example is the seed industry. It was taken over by big chemical companies beginning in the 1980s. We got down to just six firms. Previously, there were over 30 firms. These big six chemical companies, which are also seed companies, have cross-licensing agreements for genetically engineered (GE) technologies.

The commodity farmers that want these GE traits, like herbicide resistance — the independent seed companies cannot access those technologies. They either become acquired by these firms or end up going out of business. Right now, it's possible that those big six will be reduced to just three.

BASF … has gotten out of the seed sales. Bayer's trying to acquire Monsanto, Dow and DuPont are planning to merge … [and] ChemChina, a Chinese-owned chemical company, is acquiring Syngenta."

https://philhoward.net/2017/05/11/seed-industry-structure/

https://philhoward.net/2017/05/08/organic-industry/

 

More Information

To learn more, pick up a copy of Howard's book, "Concentration and Power in the Food System: Who Controls What We Eat?" If you're interested in more details, they're all there. The take-home message is that you need to vote with your pocketbook and really make the commitment to eating real, unprocessed food. Ultimately, that's how we change this corrupt and distorted food system.

As noted by Howard, it's up to each and every one of us to find out who we are supporting with our hard-earned money. In a best-case, ideal-world scenario, everyone would start cutting down on processed foods. That's really key, because if you do that, you're not likely going to support a large corporation, particularly if you buy locally.

"We need to really start avoiding those big firms, these 10 firms that control one-third of food and beverage sales in the U.S. and be willing to spend more in some cases, if it means getting a higher-quality product, or using less of it, and supporting smaller and local and independent firms," Howard says.

It's important to realize we CAN shift the behavior of these corporations. They're investor-controlled and investors want profit. If their profits go down, they have to respond to public pressure. This is how we can get many of the toxic additives out of our food supply, and how we will get GE ingredients out.

All you have to do is don't buy those kinds of products. They can have all these elaborate systems set up and control all of the federal regulatory agencies, but if people aren't buying, none of that matters. In addition to that:

"Many of these big firms receive enormous subsidies, direct and indirect. One of the ways we can change things, not only by seeking out and supporting alternatives, is by putting pressure on the government to end these big subsidies and level the playing field," Howard says.

Sources and References

 

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)