Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Occupy South Carolina Wins Round One in Free Speech Battle With Governor

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 29, 2011
In what is a small victory for the Occupy protestors in South Carolina and a major victory (at least for now) for free speech, a Richland County judge has issued a temporary restraining order against Governor Nikki Haley in attempt to remove the Occupy demonstrators from the State Capitol grounds.

The temporary restraining order prevents the protesters from being arrested for “occupying” the State house lawn until the permanent injunction hearing is settled next week.

The confrontation between the Governor and the protesters came to a head on November 16
when the S.C. Bureau of Protective Services, the law enforcement agency tasked with provided security for State institutions in South Carolina, were ordered by Governor Nikki Haley to arrest any and all protesters on the State House Lawn after 6 pm, a curfew she herself unilaterally declared. Haley apparently believes that the Governor has the right to determine who can protest, how, and when they can do so. All of this, obviously, is outside of the rule of law and is a direct violation of the Constitution.

The S.C. Bureau of Protective Services, of course, followed orders and removed the protesters on the evening of November 16, arresting 19 of them.

Haley claims the reason for her decision is that, according to her (and no other credible sources), protesters have been urinating and defecating in the bushes, but also for aesthetic concerns such as the “proliferation of mattresses, sleeping bags, and tarps.”

Haley stated:

'If these folks want to make their voices heard in an appropriate way, they can have at it. But it has to be done within the bounds of the law. They are not going to be allowed to disrespect the taxpayers or their property. No overnight stays on the taxpayer dime. No public urination. No destruction of property. This is not Oakland, California. This is not New York City. Protests are fine. But in South Carolina we believe in the rule of law, and the people of this state should never doubt that as governor, I will enforce it.'
In light of recent events across the country having to do with the Occupy protests, Haley’s comments bear some attention and clarification.

Fortunately, the strong-arm tactics of the governor and the reactionaries in the State Congress have seen the occupy movement largely undaunted. As one protester stated, “It was definitely a shot in the arm. Nikki did more for us than she did for herself.”
First, Haley’s twisted sense of the “rule of law” apparently only applies to the protesters who, ironically, are acting well within the law, unlike their Governor who has violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by establishing a curfew and then ordering arrests of peaceful protesters on public property.

Second, camping outside in the elements on the lawn of the State House is not “on the taxpayer dime.” There are no lodging fees for the State House grounds and, even if there were, the protesters are not receiving government (taxpayer) funds with which to protest.

Third, in regards to disrespecting the taxpayers, Haley might do well to understand that the protesters are taxpayers also. They are not a separate type of citizen, as bad as she might wish them to be. After all, in the midst of a depression some could consider Haley’s Five Star trips to France “on the taxpayer dime” a sign of disrespect.

Fourth, there has been no credible evidence (or even reports) of public urination at the State House grounds as a result of the Occupy protests. In fact, in a letter written to Nikki Haley by fellow reactionary State Senator Harvey Peeler, it was claimed that the protesters actually had a Port-O-Jon at the campsite. This was one of the reasons that Peeler wanted to see them evicted. But, unfortunately for the reactionaries, this goes against the “urinating in the bushes” claims made by Haley. If the protestors had a Port-O-Jon, why would they be urinating and defecating in the bushes? Did they bring it along merely as a stage prop?

The answer here is simple. Like most claims made by Nikki Haley, what we are hearing regarding the Occupiers is simply not true. At best, Haley’s comments and statistics are ripped straight from Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity. More often than not, however, they are just invented out of thin air.

This is, after all, a Governor who once claimed that anyone receiving State unemployment should be forced to undergo mandatory drug testing before receiving their money. Her argument was to use the Savannah River site as a microcosm of the unemployment situation in South Carolina. According to Haley, over half of the applicants to a local government facility had failed the drug test and this was emblematic of those who are unemployed today.

The problem for Haley was that this never actually happened. In fact, the claims couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Once one can get past the implications for civil liberties and privacy as well as the irony of a reactionary politician who constantly screams about “cutting spending” suggesting that drug testing be implemented on a statewide scale, one should also be concerned about a Governor that simply makes up statistics as a basis for the justification of such a policy. Or, as she herself has suggested, one that simply believes whatever she is told so long as it sounds good.

In response to criticism or her fantastic claims, Haley stated, “I’ve never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume you’re given good information. And now I’m learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something.”

Returning to the Occupy incident, however, Haley’s childish behavior is only making her look worse. Not only has a judge rejected her unlawful removal of the protesters from the State House grounds, but both the Mayor of Columbia and the city’s police chief have even refused to take part in the stifling of free speech.

Mayor Steve Benjamin and Police Chief Randy Scott refused to allow the state to use the city paddy wagon to jail because they did not see the protestors as a threat. Chief Scott stated, “If laws had not been broken, then we saw no reason to assist them [the state]. So we declined.”

Nevertheless, the Bureau of Protective Services went ahead with the arrests. As a result, a lawsuit was filed by some of the arrested protestors against Haley and public safety officials.

This lawsuit is the root of the restraining order against Haley which was signed by state judge Alison Lee, blocking Haley’s unilateral declarations of how and when protesters can exercise their First Amendment.

The hearing for a permanent injunction is scheduled for December 1st and, barring any unforeseen treachery in the courts, it is very likely that the Occupy protesters will be victorious and Haley, once again, will have nothing to show for her efforts but a great deal of egg on her face.

Monday, November 28, 2011

Implantable Microchips and Cyborgs are No Longer Conspiracy Theories

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 24, 2011

For years, many have mocked the idea of implantable microchips and cyborgs as both conspiracy theories and science fiction. Anyone who so much as mentioned these possibilities to their neighbor risked being labeled either as a religious fanatic or delusional and paranoid. However, as they have become more and more prevalent in everyday society, it has become increasingly difficult to ridicule these concepts.

For instance, with stories like the recent Singularity Hub article entitled, “
Revolutionary New Brain Chip Allows Monkeys To Grasp AND Feel Objects Using Their Thoughts,” these emerging technological possibilities are almost impossible to ignore.

This article discusses how scientists have recently announced the creation of an implantable device that can be placed in the brain and which will allow for the control of computers by thought. Dr. Miguel Nicolelis and company have already tested these devices in monkeys with stunningly accurate results. In addition to allowing the user to control the computer by thought, it also allows the user to feel the virtual object it is manipulating.
Of course, this device is not the first of its kind. For years, implants have allowed monkeys to control computer cursors and even robotic arms in laboratory settings.

In the most recent experiment, two macaque monkeys were trained to control a virtual arm represented on the computer screen and use the arm to “grasp” virtual objects. The difference between this latest experiment and those that have preceded it, however, is that these monkeys were able to actually feel the objects they were grasping.

The good news is that this could provide individuals who have lost limbs with more than a mere prosthetic replacement. Indeed, it would be able to offer them a prosthetic that comes complete with the sense of touch. As the quality of prosthetics continue to improve, this technology could no doubt go a great distance toward replacing lost limbs with something more than simple equipment that allows merely for basic mobility.

Yet mobility, for some, is still the main goal. Miguel Nicolelis and his associates who conducted the experiment have expressed desire to take the technology to the next level. In conjunction with
The Walk Again Project, there is allegedly a concerted effort to “restore full mobility to patients suffering from a severe degree of paralysis.”

Nicolelis’ lab at Duke University is already working toward this end. Because the ultimate goal of a return of full mobility to a person experiencing such paralysis will require support for the body itself, the scientists are also developing what they call a “wearable robot” to encase the person who is being implanted.

Yes, I said a wearable robot.
And yes, a wearable robot can also be described as an exoskeleton.
Peter Murray of Singularity Hub writes:
The brain chips – if they work – will be a technological triumph by themselves. Custom designed, the brain chips will be low-power and wireless, transmitting their signals to a processing unit worn on the patient’s belt about the size of a cell phone. That brain activity will then be translated to digital motor signals which will control the actuators across the joints of the exoskeleton. Force and stretch indicators throughout the exoskeleton will signal back to the patient’s brain the whereabouts of his or her joints and limbs.  
That technology is being created which may enable the lame to walk again is obviously good news.
However, for everything good in the world, there is an evil twin. This technology not only provides for the possibility of some darker applications, but, considering those who are currently guiding the destiny of the world, it almost ensures them. If we allow society to continue to move in the direction it is currently headed, these technologies simply do not bode well for the future of humanity as we know it.
For years, shadowy and nefarious agencies like DARPA have openly discussed creating drones designed to look like insects, snakes, and other animals. Largely, these creations have been robotic, with the appearance of being an insect, but actually being nothing more than a sophisticated remote controlled or pre-programmed drone.
Going one giant step further, and in direct relationship to the style of brain tampering spoken about early in this article, DARPA has unveiled other projects as well. As far back as 2007, DARPA announced that it was planning to not only build but grow cyborg moths and other insects for spying purposes. The program, Hybrid Insect Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (HI-MEMS), involves the construction of a “tiny lepidopterine infiltration borg by growing a living moth around a ‘micro-mechanical system.’”
Essentially, DARPA is implanting a “metallic core” into the moths which will function as a cloak for the metal center.
This is something that bears repeating. Instead of functioning as an exoskeleton like what was discussed in Nicolelis’ project, the cores will actually wear the bodies.
As Lewis Page wrote for The Register, “If Dr. Lal [DARPA scientist involved in the project] was using vast Austrian bodybuilders rather than moths, we’d be talking Terminator yet again (this happens rather a lot when one starts looking at the US defense establishment.”
Of course, there is little doubt that if DARPA is releasing this much information on HI-MEMS, the project has already been attempted, tested, and perfected a long time ago. It is only new to the general public and the few scientists who have been chosen to release the information to the population for the purposes of prepping them for the coming New World Order.
As Rod Brooks of MIT’s computer science and artificial intelligence lab (CSAIL) was quoted as saying, “This is going to happen. It’s not science like developing the nuclear bomb, which costs billions of dollars. It can be done relatively cheaply.”
He goes on, “A bunch of experiments have been done over the past couple of years where simple animals, such as rats and cockroaches, have been operated on and driven by joysticks, but this is the first time where chip has been injected in the pupa stage and ‘grown’ inside it.”
“First time.” Yeah right.
Nevertheless, Brooks continues to discuss the future of technological implants in humans when he says,  
Biological engineering is coming.
There are already more than 100,000 people with cochlear implants, which have a direct neural connection, and chips are being inserted in people’s retinas to combat macular degeneration. By the 2012 Olympics, we’re going to be dealing with systems which can aid the oxygen uptake of athletes.
There’s going to be more and more technology in our bodies . . . there’s going to be a lot of moral debates.
Moral debates there may be, but there is also no doubt that the world is more and more readily coming to accept biological intrusion and top-down control as a result of their constant training at the hands of the television, video games, and indoctrination at the hands of the education system. One need only take a look at the behavior of anyone under the age of thirty in the presence of any modern interactive technology to see the writing on the wall.
In this regard, The Singularity Movement is a perfect example of the coming scientific dictatorship and the enthusiasm of some to accept it. Singularity can be defined, very simply, as the moment when human and machine merge together. It is a philosophy that is gaining more and more steam with the general public as a result of its gradual introduction and promotion by the media (television, games, etc.) and prominent individuals like Ray Kurzweil and Rodney Brooks.
TIME magazine’s Lev Grossman discussed Singularity in this way:
Maybe we’ll merge with them to become superintelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. Maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life indefinitely. Maybe we’ll scan our consciousnesses into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: Singularity.
Singularity is obviously a movement that has been promoted from the top-down.  This is easily seen by the fact that the backers of the Singularity movement are the usual suspects including NASA and GOOGLE, as well as individuals like Bill Gates in addition to Ray Kurzweil. Not only that, but major governments have been preparing for the eventuality of a massive merger between man and machine for some time.
For instance, in a report by Richard Norton-Taylor, written for The Guardian in 2007, entitled “Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future,” Norton-Taylor relays the findings of a 90-page report administered and released by the British Ministry of Defense. The research team was tasked with describing a future “strategic context” that the British military might encounter in the coming years.
Norton-Taylor writes:
By 2035, an implantable 'information chip' could be wired directly to the brain. A growing pervasiveness of information communications technology will enable states, terrorists or criminals, to mobilize 'flashmobs,' challenging security forces to match this potential agility coupled with an ability to concentrate forces quickly in a small area.
Singularity is also a movement that has its roots in eugenics and the desire of the ruling elites for complete control over the mind, body, and soul of every human being on the planet. Oddly enough, while some may dispute this claim, this movement’s roots in eugenics is relatively open. Consider the comments made by the RAND corporation in its 2001 report, The Global Technology Revolution: Bio/Nano/Materials Trends and Their Synergies with Information Technology by 2015. It says,
The results could be astonishing. Effects may include significant improvements in human quality of life and life span . . . continued globalization, reshuffling of wealth, cultural amalgamation or invasion with potential for increased tension and conflict, shifts in power from nation states to non-government organizations and individuals . . .  and the possibility of human eugenics and cloning. [Emphasis added]
With this in mind, the developments presented in the Singularity Hub article which I discussed early on, take a more sinister tone.
As the RAND corporation states in its report, the introduction of Singularity will most likely involve a great improvement in living standards for the handicapped. At least it will at first. Eventually, the movement will begin to encompass convenience and will come to be seen as trendy and fashionable. Once merging with machines has become commonplace and acceptable (even expected), the real tyranny will begin to set in. Soon after, there will be no opt-outs allowed.
When discussing the coming technological fascism, author and researcher Alan Watt stated:
It [technology/internet/etc.] has many purposes but one of them was never to free the people, it would be used as an incredible tool of data-collection and using, like television and repetition of different topics, or the same topics or phrases again, it would be used to condition the public in their opinions, until, really, they’d be addicted to it, they could never do without it. That’s the intent, because you will go cashless eventually and it will be used as a form of social approval and disapproval, if they cut you off from the net: you won’t be able to do your banking, get money to pay your rent etc. Bertrand Russell talked about this sort of technique to be used in the future and it’s coming now. 'Cloud' will come in and that will take over and be THE one for the planet and everyone will rush into it thinking ‘my God I don’t have to worry about spyware or viruses or upgrades, it’s all done for me, out there somewhere in the big 'cloud.'' And the Cloud, eventually, will be censoring your emails and actually popping up windows to tell you 'are you sure you want to use this word, this politically incorrect word in this email?' Then it might give you a little list of fines or punishments etc. etc. This is all planned folks, that’s how you do it.
The advancements in the quality of human life as a result of this new technology have never been intended for the average person. The good that could be done by virtue of its development is only meant as a tool to sell it to the population in the beginning and to control them in the end. Indeed, the control that can and will be exerted through its acceptance is the ultimate goal.

Big Six Pesticide Manufacturers to Face Human Rights Tribunal

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 21, 2011

Beginning on December 3, 2011, some major international chemical companies will be facing a public tribunal dealing with their well-documented and systemic human rights abuses that have occurred all over the world.

The tribunal is not legally binding as it is not being administered by any governmental body. However, it will serve to shed light upon the egregious assault on human health and economic independence by the major chemical corporations. 

The public trial will be directed by The Permanent People’s Tribunal
, an organization that has held human rights tribunals in the past dealing with issues as diverse as Tibet, the Armenian Genocide, and the United States intervention in Nicaragua.

The tribunal will hear expert testimony from medical doctors, scientists, and lawyers in order to prove the charges against the chemical giants. It will also hear from the victims – farmers, consumers, and parents – who will testify as to their experiences and injuries stemming from the policies of major international corporations who have made fortunes while destroying the health and environment of billions of people. 

Pesticides Action Network (PAN) International
, a worldwide organization that is “dedicated to challenging the global proliferation of pesticides, defends basic rights to health and environmental quality, and works to ensure the transition to a just and viable society,” has exerted enormous effort and years of research and data collection in order to present indictments before the tribunal. 

PAN UK activist Nick Mole
The pesticide industry is massive and incredibly powerful. It is difficult to prove corporate manslaughter even when these products are killing hundreds of people a year. We’ve spoken to people who have been abused and we are allowing them to give voice to their individual stories. We will be presenting the outcome of the Tribunal to the corporations and will be inviting their responses.
Obviously, Mole’s statement is accurate regarding the scale of corporate crimes. If anything, it is an understatement. 

According to the Ecologist
, the “Big 6,” – Monsanto, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta, DuPont, and BASF, - control 74 percent of the global pesticide market. Not only that, but statistics provided by the World Health Organization show that around 355,000 people are suspected to die each year from “unintentional toxic chemical poisoning,” many of them from use or exposure to agrochemicals; specifically pesticides like the ones produced and distributed by the Big Six. Yet even these numbers are likely understated due to corporate interests within the United Nations structure.
In regards to this, Mole states:
The aim of taking the Big 6 to the PPT is to give a voice to the otherwise voiceless victims of pesticides around the world who have suffered as a result of the relentless promotion of toxic poisons by these multinational companies.
There is no doubt that pesticides have been causing numerous health problems in humans and animals the world over, as well as producing harmful effects on the environment. From birth defects, infertility, and hormone disruption, to Parkinson’s Disease and cancer.  Pesticides, particularly those manufactured by the Big 6, have been implicated in a plethora of adverse health effects.
Not only that, but pesticides also have been identified as a potential cause for the massive bee die-off occurring all over the world. This is yet another area in which PAN has been instrumental in building a case against the Big Six. The cases being brought from the UK and Europe will focus on neonicotinoid pesticides sold by Bayer specifically.
As beekeeper Graham White said:
Bee losses in the UK and Europe have been catastrophic, with over a million colony deaths since 1993; there is a massive body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence from European universities, which indicate that neonicotinoids are having a lethal impact on bees and other pollinating insects. It is high time that the companies that manufacture these toxic pesticides are held to account for the damage they have done.
Again, largely due to the tireless work of the Pesticides Action Network, not only are the Big 6 corporations being brought under indictment at the PPT, but so are the national governments of the United States, Switzerland, and Germany on the grounds of collusion and failure to regulate corporate power. Likewise, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization have been indicted for “facilitating corporate concentration of power through their policies and programs.”
Interestingly enough, it is not the first time that at least two of the corporations have been selected for prosecution by the PPT for human rights abuses. 
Both Bayer and BASF were “persons” of interest during the Nuremburg Trials after World War II when their merger known as I.G. Farben was broken up for acting as the manufacturing wing of Nazi Germany.
Bayer and BASF, as part of I.G. Farben, essentially provided Germany with the vast majority of explosives and synthetic gasoline[1] used by the Nazi war machine as well as the Zyklon-B gas used in the gas chambers. In the end, the Tribunal convicted 24 board members of I.G. Farben, including Fritz Ter Meer who served on I.G. Farben’s executive committee and was the individual most responsible for Auschwitz’s infamous Section II. Upon his release in 1952, Ter Meer was appointed board member of Bayer and, after only one year, was appointed chairman. To this day, it is possible to receive a scholarship* from the Fritz Ter Meer Foundation* maintained by Bayer. The history of I.G. Farben, along with Bayer and BASF, are discussed in the first chapter of my book, Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom.
However, with the crimes of the Big 6 now being investigated by an international human rights tribunal, it is important for those of us who have dedicated so much of our time and effort to fighting corporations like Monsanto to guard against walking into a trap. We must become streetwise.
Although the Big 6 absolutely need their crimes exposed to the world, we must be careful not to allow ourselves to be guided into a one-world government structure, regardless of the short-term outcome.
We must remember that the PPT is working under the banner (unofficially) of the United Nations -- and it is international law to which the PPT is appealing.
Obviously, there are some who tend toward the philosophy of using the existence of international law to reign in major corporations in a “use their own system against them” type of mentality. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with those who wish to use this method of resistance.
However, we must be very careful not to apply to international law in such a way as to legitimize it and sacrifice our own national sovereignty for a short-term goal. We cannot allow ourselves to become so enraged at our own national governments that we begin to appeal to a supranational government to save us. This can only play directly into the hands of the globalists.
Training national governments and their citizens to obey and appeal to international law for justice is not a solution to our problems with the likes of the Big 6 or any other issue. The answer is not to have the United Nations pass a new law regarding these entities; it is to force our own governments to reject the overuse and environmentally destructive use of these pesticides within our own borders -- a power each of these governments obviously have.
Although shining the light on the Big 6 Corporations is most definitely a welcome exercise, and one that should be encouraged, it is also one that must not be outsourced to international governmental bodies. We must all work together as human beings regardless of our national boundaries, but we cannot allow ourselves to be played into accepting the dictates of a world government that will be even less open to the concerns of its citizens than the National, State, and Local governments we suffer under today.
To be clear, the above commentary should not be taken as a denigration of the work of the PAN or even of the PPT who, to their credit, have indicted branches of the United Nations as well as three national governments and six international corporations. However, it should serve both as a warning and a call to remain vigilant against potential pitfalls in the fight against the Big Six.
We should always fight the fire, but the frying pan should not be an option. Let’s build the case against the Big Six. Let’s expose them for what they are, and do so in a unified and global manner. But, after we do so, we must force our own governments to dismantle the power these agents wield over the world.
* Dr. Weimbs was a recipient of the Fritz Ter Meer Foundation Undergraduate Scholarship. This link is provided only to show the existence of the Foundation and scholarship, not to link Dr. Weimbs to anything or anyone discussed in this article. Beyond this mention and the article cited next, there is little available online regarding the Foundation and its operations.  

[1] Griffin, G. Edward. World Without Cancer. 2nd Edition. American Media. 1997. P.235-236.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Does Smallpox Contract to Siga Highlight Corporate-Government Corruption, or Imminent Threat?

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 16, 2011
In recent months there has been a peculiar increase in the amount of anthrax vaccine being purchased and stored by the U.S. government allegedly in case of an outbreak or the possibility of a “bio-attack.”

For instance, on October 3, 2011, it was reported
that Emergent BioSolutions Inc. received “an award to supply the U.S. Government with 44.75 million doses of BioThrax (Anthrax Vaccine Absorbed) over a period of five years for a total value of up to $1.25 billion.” Only a few days before, on September 15, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it had awarded millions of dollars worth of grants to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Developmental Authority (BARDA) for the purpose of supporting the “advanced development of a novel next-generation anthrax vaccine and a new type of anthrax antitoxin.”

Coupled with the fact that the U.S. government claims it cannot account
for or track thousands of pounds of “highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium” and that the Department of Homeland Security, along with local law enforcement, actually lost their own bomb at a drill being conducted at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, AZ, some such as myself began to wonder if we were not seeing the signs of a potential false flag attack.

Although the hopes are generally that the exposure of the preparation for such attacks will play some part in preventing them, little has been done to actually abate the fears of a looming false flag.
Indeed, the extraordinary amount of money being spent to acquire vaccines and drugs for what are essentially non-existent threats is continuing and, like the previous vaccine orders, there is a tie-in with those who view the idea of Martial Law as both an inevitability if not an ideal situation.
At the very least, these vaccine contracts are example of the revolving door between regulatory agencies, major corporations, and the awarding of government contracts.

Indeed, nowhere is the evidence of corruption more apparent than the recent granting of a $433 million smallpox drug deal to
Siga Technologies.

In what is clearly another example of no-bid contracts handed out to major corporations with monied interests, the U.S. government has taken extraordinary steps to
cut all other companies out of the bidding process in order to award Siga the contract. Of course, no-bid contracts are not unusual by any stretch of the imagination. They have been a symptom of government corruption for many years. However, the clownish manner in which the Obama administration has doled out the money to Siga does bear some mention.

Apparently, the contract award competition actually began as a typical bidding contest, even if the contest was only for show. However, after it became clear that Siga was about to lose the contract, the bidding process was suspended and all other firms were blocked from participating. The administration then opened up a new “sole-source” (read “no-bid”) procurement process in which Siga was the only company asked to submit a proposal.

The contract, as David Willman reports from the LA Times
, calls for Siga to provide the United States government with 1.7 million doses of the drug ST-246, an antiviral pill that allegedly can be used to treat people whose smallpox diagnosis came too late for the vaccine to take effect.

Of course, the smallpox vaccine itself is not only ineffective but highly dangerous
. Although this much has been well established, it has been given the green light by the FDA.

However, ST-246 cannot even pass the ridiculously biased and corporate-controlled FDA testing and regulation guidelines. The drug has never been tested in humans (and cannot be due to ethics issues) and the ability to accurately determine whether or not the drug is safe or effective with animal testing is questioned as well.

Not only that, but the threat posed from smallpox is a virtually nonexistent one. It is a disease that has not been found amongst the general population since 1978. In fact, the only known living smallpox agents are those possessed by the United States and Russian governments. According to Willman’s report, there is also no credible evidence that any other country or terrorist group possesses it. Still, the U.S. government is moving ahead with its massive order of smallpox drugs.

Yet, the monetary value of the drugs, as determined by the “sole-source” contract, can be potentially much higher than the $433 million cited earlier. This is because ST-246 is only guaranteed for 38 months, unlike the smallpox vaccine which is guaranteed for decades. This short shelf-life will require  the supply to be constantly replenished, a job that will most likely go to the original supplier barring any unforeseen circumstances. If Siga is granted replenishing contracts, the original $433 million figure could balloon to the tune of $2.8 billion.

Even in this regard, the Obama administration initially attempted to ensure that Siga would be unchallenged. Originally, it had intended for Siga to remain the sole supplier as well as the company that would replenish the stock. However, Chimerix, a small North Carolina company that had attempted to compete with Siga, formally complained about the unfair award practices. In order to end the dispute, the government dropped the exclusivity clause. Now, other companies will be able to go through the motions of what is most likely a bid contest that is merely for show.

Dr. Nicole Lurie
, the presidential appointee who has essentially led the charge to accrue ST-246, has argued continuously for the drug to be purchased because of the possibility of the “unexpected.” However, highlighting the obvious chicanery involved in the bid and award process for ST-246, many others who are considered experts in the field are dismissing the spending as ridiculous and unnecessary.

For instance, Dr. Donald A. Henderson, the man who is credited (at least by mainstream media) with the eradication of smallpox and who worked under the World Health Organization and coordinated U.S. bio-defense under the George W. Bush administration, stated, “We’ve got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use – how much more do we need? The bottom line is, we’ve got a limited amount of money.”

Likewise, Dr. Thomas M. Mack, who served as an advisor to the Food and Drug Administration on the smallpox virus and a current epidemiologist at USC’s Keck School of Medicine who has also dealt with smallpox in Pakistan, called the stockpiling of ST-246, “a waste of time and a waste of money.” 

Neither of these individuals can be considered “conspiracy theorists.” If anything, they are insiders.

Yet the Obama administration has remained undaunted by the questions and the ridicule being levied against its determination to feed its corporate sponsors. Dr. Nicole Lurie especially remained stalwart in defense of her investment of taxpayer money into the corporate black hole.

Lurie stated, “I don’t put probabilities around anything in terms of imminent or not. Because what I can tell you is, in the two-plus years I’ve been in this job, it’s the unexpected that always happens.”

Although Lurie does not exactly say what unexpected biological agent-related issues have arisen in the last two years, it stands to reason that she would defend her efforts to acquire ST-246 as she has invested a great deal of time and effort into the contract negotiations.

According to the LA Times report, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, the chief medical officer for the HHS bio-defense preparedness unit, wrote in an internal memo as far back as March that the profit margin projected for Siga was “outrageous.” At that time, the projected profit was around 180 percent. Echoing Hatchett’s sentiment, a colleague e-mailed him and agreed that “no government contracting officer ‘would sign a 3 digit profit percentage.’”

Remarkably, Siga’s chief executive, Dr. Eric A. Rose, actually complained to the agency in writing about the department’s “approach to profit” even after Siga was asking for approximately $255 per dose of ST-246, an obviously inflated price that logically followed the lack of competition for the contract.

Lurie, however, then wrote a letter to Dr. Rose and assured him that the “most senior procurement official,” would soon be put in charge of the negotiations. Of course, “most senior procurement official” is merely corrupt bureaucrat for “official more skilled in fleecing the American people and corporate/government collusion.”

Shortly thereafter, Lurie’s next-in-command replaced the government’s chief negotiator Dr. Andre Early with another individual.

Lurie accurately concluded in her letter that Rose would be much more satisfied with the new negotiator. And indeed he was. Siga was awarded the contract at the inflated price it was asking. Yet Lurie continued to suggest that the contract was awarded on merit with an urgent need as the driving force.

At first Lurie denied having ever written the letter or had such contact with Rose. Not only that, but Lurie admitted that such contact as the letter mentioned above would have been inappropriate given her position.

However, a public statement by an HHS spokeswoman directly contradicts Lurie’s claim and acknowledges the letter, claiming that it “reflects the critical importance of the potential procurement to national security.”

Indeed, correspondence between Lurie and Rose is not something surprising or uncommon. After all, Rose served on the U.S. National Bio-defense Science Board which advised Lurie on biological terrorism response as well as other health emergencies.

In addition, Lurie has also been employed by none other than the RAND Corporation
, an entity that is considered a think-tank, but has become one of the most powerful voices in the NGO community, which is famous for promoting what amounts to World War III and a total police state.

One might ask: why Siga? Why is it so important to dole out such a large contract to this specific company? One possible answer lies with its controlling shareholder, billionaire Ronald O. Perelman. Perelman is often mentioned as one of the world’s richest men (yet these claims can be contested) and is a known Democratic Party donor.

As Willman writes for the LA Times,
Perelman and others at Siga’s affiliate, MacAndrews & Forbes, have long been major political donors. They gave a total of $607,550 to federal campaigns for the 2008 and 2010 elections, according to statistics compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. About 65% of that money went to Democrats. Perelman donated an additional $50,000 to President Obama’s inauguration.
Yet the issue goes a bit deeper than a major campaign and party donor being rewarded with massive no-bid contracts for non-existent threats. Obviously, this type of corruption is by no means specific to parties. So, before one launches into a tirade against “liberals” and the Democratic party, consider this: Dr. Eric Rose was appointed to the U.S. National Bio-defense Science Board in 2007 by George W. Bush, a Republican.

Before Rose’s appointment, Siga did not simply appear out of nowhere. As early as 2003, Perelman invested heavy resources into Siga and implanted his own executives within the company. Interestingly enough, Bush initiated Project BioShield (PDF), a program to develop a stockpile of drugs under the auspices of preparation to counter bio-terrorism, shortly thereafter in 2004. This program provided the company with fertile grounds for future profits. Only a few months after, Siga purchased the rights to ST-246 from ViroPharma Inc. paying $1 million, and 1 million shares of Siga’s common stock.

The apparent gamble began to pay off immediately. Between 2004 and 2007, Siga was awarded contracts worth a total of $23.5 million to develop ST-246 by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

However, considering the close relationship between those in government and their counterparts in the corporate world, it becomes harder and harder to consider “gambles” and “risks” as anything other than a sure bet.

That being said, Siga never left anything to chance. As Willman describes:
From 2005 through September, the company has paid three lobbying firms $800,000 to represent its interests in Washington, public records show. Disclosures filed by the lobbyists said they focused on Project BioShield and 'issues related to homeland security and HHS,' along with 'government procurement of vaccines.'
Taken at face value, the recent announcement of the Siga contract seems as if it were nothing more than another case of government corruption taking the form of no-bid contracts that span across party lines. Yet the threat of another more diabolical purpose behind the stockpiling of drugs and vaccines in relation to diseases like smallpox and anthrax, coupled with other more “coincidental” happenings, is still very real.

Indeed, it remains to be seen whether the sense of imminence with which Nicole Lurie and the Obama administration have pursued ST-246 is the result of mere political language meant to camouflage corporate payoffs, or whether it is something more sinister which is being prepared for a future false flag bio-terror attack.

Therefore, we must remain vigilant in our ability to acknowledge true threats, while dismissing those that have no merit. At the very least, those elements in government, as well as those in the corporate world who have engaged in such obvious, under-the-table deals should not go unpunished. Nor should they be overlooked.

Monday, November 14, 2011

The Brave New World of Genetically Modifying a 'New Human Species'

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
November 11, 2011

If some of the information emerging from the technology, governmental, and academic worlds are any indication, not only is the police state here; the scientific dictatorship is right around the corner. Indeed, if recent comments made by Juan Enriquez are indicative of the coming state merger between technology and genetics, we have much to be concerned about. 

For those that are unfamiliar with Enriquez, he may not be the most flashy of the science superstars currently on the scene, but he is not exactly a nobody either. Enriquez was the founding director of the Harvard Business School Life Sciences Project and is currently chairman and CEO of Biotechonomy LLC., a “life sciences research and investment firm” and managing director of Excel Venture Management. He is the author of numerous books, including As The Future Catches You: How Genomics And Other Forces Are Changing Your Life, Work, Health, and Wealth and The Untied States of America: Polarization, Fracturing, and Our Future

Enriquez also serves on the boards of Cabot Corporation, The Harvard Medical School Genetics Advisory Council, The Chairman’s International Council of the America’s Society, the Visiting Committee of Harvard’s David Rockefeller Center, Tuft University’s EPIIC, and Harvard Business School’s PAPSAC. 

Enriquez is a Harvard graduate himself who has previously served as CEO of Mexico City’s Urban Development Corporation, Coordinator General of Economic Policy and Chief of Staff for Mexico’s Secretary of State. Enriquez also boasts of working closely with Craig Venter, who is generally credited with the mapping of the human genome.

Obviously, Enriquez has established quite the résumé in the academic and business worlds.  This, combined with his appearances on the very popular TED conference talks, only add to his qualifications in the field of culture creation which is most likely his role. Indeed, much like the other scientific superstars provided to the public by the culture industry, it appears Mr. Enriquez may be more talented in the area of delivering messages than making discoveries. This is why Enriquez’s comments during the interview with Technology Review’s Emily Singer are somewhat disturbing.

The interview was conducted after Enriquez’s speech at a Technology Review conference where he mentioned that, as described by Singer, “Our newfound ability to write the code of life will profoundly change the world as we know it.”  According to Enriquez, because we as humans can engineer both our environment and ourselves, humanity is now breaking the “boundaries” of our own natural existence and development which, of course, is described as “Darwinian evolution,” itself a questionable strand of a highly suspect theory to begin with. 

Nevertheless, when asked why he thought there is going to be a new human species, Enriquez responded in typical eugenicist fashion. He said,
The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires. 
He goes on to discuss the manner in which humans are already influencing their own “evolution.” He says:
If you turned off the electricity in the United States, you would see millions of people die quickly, because they wouldn’t have asthma medications, respirators, insulin, a whole host of things we invented to prevent people from dying. Eventually, we get to the point where evolution is guided by what we’re engineering. That’s a big deal. Today’s plastic surgery is going to seem tame compared to what’s coming.
Enriquez’s comments in this regard are a bit puzzling if the reader does not fully understand the position from which he is coming. The fact that millions of people are attached to electronic devices on which their lives depend is not a testament to guided or enhanced evolution at all. If anything, this would indicate a move in the opposite direction. 

Keep in mind that Enriquez is a Darwinian Evolutionist, so he is keenly aware of the process by which Darwinian evolution allegedly progresses. For that reason, his comments may seem to be a contradiction of his own belief system to some. However, when one reads the rest of the interview, Enriquez’s statement begins to make more sense. 

During the course of the short interview, Enriquez makes reference to how the new technology, as it emerges, will change virtually everything in society as we know it. 

And he means everything. Not just industries. Not just economic disparity. Everything. 

This includes morality itself. In fact, Enriquez even goes so far as to define this shift in morality as the “new ethics.” 

Enriquez saves the best for last, however, when he explains how the “new ethics” will come into play.
He says:
The issue of [genetic variation] is a really uncomfortable question, one that for good reason, we have been avoiding since the 1930s and '40s. A lot of the research behind the eugenics movement came out of elite universities in the U.S. It was disastrously misapplied. But you do have to ask, if there are fundamental differences in species like dogs and horses and birds, is it true that there are no significant differences in humans? We are going to have an answer to that question very quickly. If we do, we need to think through an ethical, moral framework to think about questions that go way beyond science.
This statement alone echoes the same mentality that was accepted and promoted during the early half of twentieth century to justify mass sterilization, institutionalization, social segregation, even infanticide

Although eugenics is now allegedly abhorred by academia and the mainstream media, the fact is that it still plays as much a role in both science and government policy as it ever did. Only the names have changed. 

Instead of “eugenics” and “racial hygiene,” the scientific community now promotes “social biology” and “sociobiology.” “Deficient” genes now replace the term “inferior” genes.  “Family planning” now replaces “abortion” and “sterilization.”

As quoted above, Enriquez stated that eugenics were disastrously misapplied in the 1930s and 1940s. Although he does not clarify whether he is referring to the American or the German version (or both), we can reasonably assume that he meant that the program was often race-based, as opposed to being based simply on “inferior genetics” across the board. Or, perhaps he is merely referring to the public relations issues that arose from these systems.  At this point, it is difficult to determine. 

Regardless, he openly questions whether or not some humans are so different from one another that they may be considered an entirely different species. This, in and of itself, is reminiscent of a language used in eugenics campaigns in both Europe and America years ago. 

Considering the fact that Enriquez is in favor of the creation of a “new ethics,” this statement alone, if his philosophy gains any traction, is quite concerning. 

In light of the increase in propaganda masquerading as science and being peddled by science superstars like Enriquez, there is no doubt the world’s population is being prepped for a eugenics-based future. This time, of course, the system will be assisted by a much more sophisticated technological machine and, thus, a much more efficient system of eugenics. After years of non-stop television, media repetition, and “experts” who tout the benefits of merging man and machine, as well as the cost of inheriting “inferior” genes, there is also little doubt that the world’s population will march into this future willingly. 

Although greatly improved in terms of implementation and public perception, we have seen this system before and, unfortunately, what Juan Enriquez labels a “new ethics” may not be very new at all.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Threat to China: Will Corporatists in U.S. Government Move Forward to Assist Big Oil in Vietnam Discovery?

Brandon Turbeville
November 9, 2011
ExxonMobil, the world’s largest publicly traded company (by market value), has announced a “potentially significant” gas discovery off the coast of Vietnam. 
 It is now almost universally accepted among the general population and political commentators as a foregone conclusion that the United States and China will eventually face off in direct conflict at some point in the future. The decline of the American Empire and the simultaneous rise of the Chinese Empire will no doubt cause the two imperialist nations to butt heads eventually, most likely resulting in currency wars, diplomatic disputes, proxy military battles and, ultimately, direct military confrontation.

The massive amount of U.S. Treasury bills held by China, as well that of other Western countries, is becoming an increasingly unstable situation economically the world over. Indeed, China has expressed antipathy toward being considered the worthless currency recycling bin, and is a powder keg that is almost ready to blow. Especially as holding on to Western currency becomes less and less advantageous for Chinese economic policy. When the powder keg does blow, Western currency  - American currency in particular – will be smashed to pieces.

Not only that, but with the acceleration of foreign policy disagreements between the U.S. and China also on the rise, specifically but not limited to areas like Tibet, Taiwan, Libya, Africa (as a whole), North Korea, and Iran, the likelihood of direct military conflict looms even heavier as time progresses and as each empire marches forward in imposing their wills on masses of people who merely wish to be left alone to control their own destiny.

However, yet another issue has arisen that will only serve to heighten the tension between the United States and China. Interestingly enough, as has so often been the case in recent years, the United States will find itself tangled in another affair centered around oil and initiated at the behest of the large multinational oil companies.

Monday, November 7, 2011

Psychiatric Drugs, School Violence, and the Big Pharma Cover-up

Brandon Turbeville
November 7, 2011
It is an unfortunate reality that with so much disinformation being spread by the media, the medical establishment, and the pharmaceutical industries, it is becoming more and more difficult to take at face value anything that comes out of their mouths. Indeed, it is becoming more and more dangerous to do so.

Even the slightest claims issued from the medical establishment, particularly from the psychiatric wing, must be independently researched, evaluated, and reevaluated in order to determine the accuracy, potential conflicts of interest, and hidden agendas at play. In fact, it has become paramount that any individual faced with an issue related to psychiatry, pharmaceuticals, or even basic medical conditions apply himself and exercise the due diligence required in order to understand the issue fully on his own, outside of the “orders” and dictates of his doctor or the propaganda machine known as the media. In 2011, failure to do so may result in serious consequences.

One of the more foggy areas of modern science (at least that which is presented to members of the general public) is the study of genetics, pharmacogenetics, and genotyping. This area is one, like many others, that shows a great deal of promise for human health and potential; yet, also like many others, it is one that has been beset with political and philosophical ideologies as well as the iron-fisted control wielded by various monied corporate interests.

We must be very discerning then, about what false agendas are being promoted via the science of genetics and what are legitimate discoveries.
For instance, the medical/pharmaceutical industries have, for years, argued that disorders like autism are genetic, even going so far as to suggest that they have possibly discovered the gene that causes it. Likewise, these industries have propagandized that mental disorders such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder are inherited genetically as well. However, closer analysis of the evidence alleged to support these conclusions actually demonstrates the exact opposite. In fact, the vast majority of real research conducted on these types of disorders lean toward the fact that they are environmental in nature, whether chemically induced or as result of personal experience.

We have also witnessed the study of genetics and heredity used to justify and promote the horrendous eugenics agenda -- a theory and practice which is unfortunately very much alive-and-well today. Genetics and heredity have been used to justify the reduction of population, authoritarianism and top-down control of the elite over the masses, and the classification of whole groups of humans into the category of “inferior” for thousands of years, culminating in the tragedies of Nazi Germany and continuing on to the present day. Although moving underground and taking cover in euphemisms and politically correct terminology after the mass rejection of the “final solution,” eugenics has since been able to move back into the general scientific lexicon by stealth.

After so much treachery, one might be tempted to dismiss the study of genetics altogether as merely a branch of eugenics itself. However, it is important to remember that science can be used for good or for evil, and that legitimate discoveries about the human genome can and have been made in the past.

Yet it is an unfortunate reality that many of these discoveries have been held back from the general public, while the more fantastic notions of heredity are promoted into absurdity and, by repetition, into the general public’s everyday discourse. This, of course, is not by accident.

Nevertheless, it is with this in mind that we must understand the latest discoveries and the subsequent implications for individuals, pharmaceutical companies, and the mental health industry at large.

Enter CYP450

CYP450 stands for the Cytochrome P450 enzymes.  Scientists understand these enzymes to be responsible for metabolizing almost half of all drugs currently on the market. P450 gene variants (polymorphisms) are implicated in the variability in drug response among a wide range of individuals.   
These polymorphisms, which are essentially structural changes in the human DNA, might hold the key as to why some individuals do not respond to high doses of medication and why other individuals may have toxic or adverse effects to the same medication at very low doses. As the Mayo clinic Communique, Cytochrome P450 Enzyme Genotyping: Optimizing Patient Care Through Pharmacogenetics explains:
The CYP450 enzymes are a group of at least 57 different proteins that are each coded by a different gene. The CYP450 enzymes, also known as mixed function monooxygenases, are located in the microsomes of the endoplasmic reticulum in many cell types including the liver, small intestine, kidney, lung, brain, and skin. In mammals, the CYP450 enzymes are the primary catalysts for detoxification reactions that render water-insoluble molecules sufficiently water soluble to be excreted in the urine. . . . Drugs, hormones, toxins, carcinogens, mutagens, environmental pollutants, and other xenobiotics are metabolized by CYP450 enzymes.
Of the CYP450 enzyme family, there are other more specific enzymes such as CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6, etc. These three enzymes specifically are responsible for approximately 40% of all CYP450-mediated drug metabolism. The CYP2D6 enzyme itself is responsible for the bulk of drug metabolism at around 20% to 30% of drug metabolism in the CYP450 family.

Again, referring to the Mayo clinic Communique:
The CYP2D6 enzyme is the most extensively characterized polymorphic drug-metabolizing enzyme. It is responsible for hydroxylation or dealkylation of over 100 commonly prescribed drugs such as alpha-blockers, analgesics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antiemetics, antihypertensives, antiestrogens, antineoplastics, antipsyhotics, antiretrovirals, antitussives, beta- and andrenoceptor blockers, cardioactive drugs, H1 blockers, opioids, stimulants and sympathomimetics. 
Highly variable, with more than 160 variants identified to date, the CYP2D6 gene is located on chromosome 22, where crossover events lead to duplication of this gene. 

In relation to the CYP2D6 enzyme, there are four classifications – Extensive Metabolizers (EM), Poor Metabolizers (PM), Intermediate Metabolizers (IM), and Ultrarapid Metabolizers (UM). 

EM (Extensive Metabolizers) are considered the “normal genotype,” “which is free of inactivating polymorphisms, deletions, or duplications.”  PM (Poor Metabolizers) are individuals who have “deficient” enzyme function in terms of CYP450 metabolic processes and, subsequently, have difficulty clearing certain medications. IM (Intermediate Metabolizers) are those who have some functioning CYP450 enzymes but are subject to loss of the function of these enzymes after the “second hit” of medication, thus turning them into PM. UM (Ultrarapid Metabolizers) are those who metabolize the drug so rapidly that it clears so quickly that there is little or none of the desired effect.  In medications that required metabolism to activate, however, UM individuals the metabolite may be produced too quickly, resulting in toxicity and the realization of side effects.

While there are potentially adverse health effects with any one of the four classifications, the focus of this article is on those who are generally PM (Poor Metabolizers). This is because these individuals have a higher chance of experiencing adverse health effects of pharmaceuticals than those with “normal” functioning EMCYP2D6 enzymes. 

Of course “normal” and “deficient” are misnomers because all of these genotype categories are normal and none are truly deficient. They are only deficient in the context of pharmaceutical medication. 

While this information might seem new to the general public who have been subjected to years and years of steady propaganda from the mental health and pharmaceutical industries suggesting that medication is the answer for every uncomfortable and natural human feeling or response, the fact is that these industries, as well as numerous scientists, have known about it for some time. 

The connection to CYP450 enzymes and the adverse effects of psycho-pharmaceuticals has been documented in many different scientific studies. It has been demonstrated for some time that those individuals with no or poorly performing CYP450 enzymes are much more likely to suffer the side effects of antipsychotic and/or antidepressant medication. This much was explained in Yolande Lucire’s study, “Antidepressant-induced akasthisia-related homicides associated with diminishing mutations in metabolizing genes of the CYP450 family
.” (Source)

Recently published by Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Medicine, the purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between three of the enzymes of the CYP450 family (CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19), akasthisia, drugs (legal, illegal, prescription, and non-prescription), violence, and the diminishing mutations in the metabolizing genes. The researchers utilized their access to individuals who were diagnosed with akathisia/serotonin toxicity related to their consumption of psychiatric medications. Out of this test population, many had a history of violence and suicidal ideation; some even committed homicide as a result. 

The results of the study pointed to a clear correlation between “deficient” CYP450 enzyme activity and the experience of adverse side effects, including but not limited to: serious violence, homicide, and suicide. Indeed, the researchers concluded that “prescribing antidepressants without knowing about CYP450 genotypes is like giving blood transfusions without matching for ABO groups.” 

It is important to note, however, that Big Pharma has been aware of these connections for some time, yet they, along with the mental health and medical establishments have continued to push psychiatric medications at an ever increasing rate. The Lucire researchers comment on this very aspect when discussing the results of the study. They write:
In the cases presented in this paper, concerning subjects with abnormal CYP450 metabolism (ie, ultrarapid and/or diminished), the antidepressant or its metabolites may have reached a toxic level in hours or days correlating with onset of intense dysphoria and akasthisia. The symptoms of toxicity were not recognized, or were ignored by patient and/or treating doctor and, in many cases, the dose of the antidepressant was increased while various “antidotes” to side effects, like sleeping pills, nausea, and pain medications, were added. They were prescribed by clinicians educated by drug company representatives, available information, and key opinion leaders who receive substantial benefits from the makers of these drugs, an issue that is coming to light with whistleblower (qui tam) cases taken by attorneys, state and federal, against the makers for fraudulent promotion. Healy (2006) has documented the details of these fraudulent promotions, but they remain outside the purview of regulatory agencies who approve, even subsidise, drugs and sanction ghost-written product information concerning their use. [emphasis added]
This has stunning implications regarding many of the irrational acts of violence seen in modern society by individuals who were “in the system” at one time or another. Specifically, the number of school shootings in the United States and the numerous cases of children killing their parents or parents killing their children, as well as other relatively irrational and, quite frankly, strange acts of violence. 

Likewise, these findings also have dramatic implications for the increase in suicide.

It is well-known that the overwhelming majority of school shooters have been on antidepressants or other psychiatric medications before and during their rampages. So have a great deal of those who have committed suicide. 

These facts and findings raise the question that many learned individuals have been posing for some time: Are the pharmaceutical companies liable for the increase in violence, suicide, and psychological damage among many members of the general population who have consumed their product?

If the makers of the drugs knew that those lacking “adequate” CYP450 enzyme function would be susceptible to serious side effects such as those mentioned above, then it would necessarily follow that they would be guilty of “Failure to warn.” 

While some side effects (but certainly not all) are mentioned on the labels, in medical dictionaries, and “educational” material, nowhere is it mentioned that someone lacking the corresponding CYP450 family enzymes might be at higher risk for experiencing these side effects. 

Indeed, the question of “Failure to warn” on the part of the pharmaceutical companies has already arisen in court. Litigation has already been brought against these corporations -- specifically Eli Lilly -- alleging that the corporation is guilty of “Failure to warn” in regards to the side effects of Prozac. In 2002, a lawsuit was brought
against Eli Lilly alleging that the company had “failed to publicize research showing some people are 'poor metabolizers of Prozac' and a test can reveal if a patient might be affected.”

If these cases are successful, and if they are allowed to continue, it is not likely that they will stop with the Big Pharma corporations.  
Hospitals, medical practices, psychiatrists, and doctors are all likely to suffer the harvest of the seeds sown by the pharmaceutical companies. As Eileen Danneman of Vaccine Liberation Army writes:
An ‘inadvertent’ induction of TSBP or ISS by a psychiatrist can no longer serve as a credible or legal excuse for iatrogenic harm to the patient and safety risk to the public at large considering the wealth of research, science-based evidence and clinical reports since the mapping of genes and the identification of GENETIC POLYMORPHISMS OF CYTOCHROME P450 (CYP) 2D6 and other alleles since the 1980s. . . 
Soon Hospitals and Psychiatrists will join the ranks of failed defendants, as medical malpractice attorneys become educated in the subject of gene testing and psychiatry, thereby opening up channels for multiple level litigations. Due to the ever expanding field of pharmacogentics, and the ever increasing inclusion of information on Cytochrome P450 in manufacturers’ package inserts, (specifically information on 2D6) there is no question that psychiatric directors of hospitals, mental health clinic directors and psychiatrists in general have working knowledge and have, indeed, had sufficient knowledge of genetic polymorphism of Cytochrome P450 2D6 and other alleles for the past 10-15 years. Clearly disregarding this knowledge, psychiatrists have ‘failed to warn’ their patients putting them in harms way and the public at great risk. (Source)
Indeed, the connection between CYP450 enzymes and the increased risk of drug side effects is relatively well-known amongst practicing psychiatrists already. Please see the following links: 

The information is even known and addressed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

This writer personally asked some within the profession as to the relationship between CYP450 enzymes and increased potential for side effects and was surprised to see the level of knowledge was such that the general response was that no one should be prescribed these specific types of medication without adequate testing to determine their risk potential. Certainly, this level of knowledge may not be representative of the general population of psychiatrists as no scientific poll was taken, yet it does show that this knowledge has been circulating amongst those practicing psychiatry today.

Obviously, any pharmaceutical corporation that has knowingly withheld evidence or research that may point toward a relationship between P450 enzymes and drug side effects should be subject to both prosecution and litigation. Indeed, there is virtually no doubt that they have done just that. 

If a massive onslaught of lawsuits, investigations, and prosecutions are launched against Big Pharma, then Big Pharma will get exactly what it deserves. The same with any hospitals, doctors, or psychiatrists that knowingly treated patients without adequate precautions. 

But what exactly would be the repercussions of such a reaction?

This is where we must be more streetwise in our responses and our demands. This is where we must be aware of the Hegelian Dialectic so often used by the control system also known as Problem-Reaction-Solution. 

If the connection between CYP450 enzymes and pharmaceutical side effects become more widely publicized and lawsuits and prosecutions become more common, it is likely that the system will demand mandatory genetic testing as a prerequisite for the administration of any medications. 

Because the test required to determine whether or not one is a possessor of “adequate” or “deficient”
enzyme capacity is relatively cheap (around $300), noninvasive, and because Big Pharma, doctors, and psychiatrists will likely be screaming at the top of their lungs about liability, DNA testing may become routine for anyone seeking medical or psychiatric treatment. Especially if the insurance companies cover the test, which undoubtedly they will at the first sign the population is willing to walk into the trap of a covert national DNA database. 

While medical and psychiatric practitioners will no doubt wish to shield themselves against liability (which is ironic considering how virtually none of their “medicines” are free from serious side effects) and will wish to use DNA testing as their preferred method of doing so, those of us who still opt to consult these individuals must also insist that these tests should never be made mandatory. We must demand that one never be forced to submit to such a test before receiving medication. We must suggest that, at worst, doctors require a consent form after having adequately educated the patient (in person and in writing) of the possible side effects so as to allow for the doctor’s or institution’s release of liability as well as for the privacy and rights of the individual. 

Any system that requires DNA testing is one that is bound to play right into the hands of the elitists and eugenicists that control it. While DNA testing holds a great deal of promise for human health and human progress, we cannot allow this technology to become that which enslaves us instead of that which would help set us free.

In the end, the only way to truly be safe from both the side effects and the coming attempts at coerced DNA confiscation is to be free of the system itself. After all, one cannot be harmed from “medication” if one does not consume it in the first place.