Welcome to the blog of Indian 007

Like a beacon unto the world ...

Friday, January 29, 2010

Glacier Meltdown: Another Scientific Scandal Involving the IPCC Climate Research Group

F. William Engdahl

Only days after the failed Copenhagen Global Warming Summit, yet a new scandal over the scientific accuracy of the UN IPCC 2007 climate report has emerged. Following the major data-manipulation scandals from the UN-tied research center at Britain’s East Anglia University late 2009, the picture emerges of one of the most massive scientific frauds of recent history.

Senior members of the UN climate project, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been forced to admit a major error in the 2007 IPCC UN report that triggered the recent global campaign for urgent measures to reduce “manmade emissions” of CO2. The IPCC’s 2007 report stated, “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world.” Given that this is the world’s highest mountain range and meltdown implies a massive flooding of India, China and the entire Asian region, it was a major scare “selling point” for the IPCC agenda. As well, the statement on the glacier melt in the 2007 IPCC report contains other serious errors such as the statement that “Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. And a table in the report says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year. Now scientists around the world are scouring the entire IPCC report for indications of similar lack of scientific rigor.

It emerges that the basis of the stark IPCC glacier meltdown statement of 2007 was not even a scientific study of melting data. Rather it was a reference to a newspaper article cited by a pro-global warming ecological advocacy group, WWF.

The original source of the IPCC statement, it turns out, appeared in a 1999 report in the British magazine, New Scientist that was cited in passing by WWF. The New Scientist author, Fred Pierce, wrote then, “The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a paper published by the Indian Government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist." The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.” [1]

The same Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, has recently been under attack for huge conflicts of interest related to his business interests that profit from the CO2 global warming agenda he promotes.[2]

Pearce notes that the original claim made by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, in a 1999 email interview with Pearce, namely that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035, never was repeated by Hasnain in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that Hasnain now says the remark was "speculative".

Despite the lack of scientific validation, the 10-year-old claim ended up in the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the

Since publication of the latest New Scientist article, the IPCC officially has been forced to issue the following statement: “the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

The IPCC adds, "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.” [3]

In an indication of the defensiveness prevailing within the UN’s IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, insists that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."

Some serious scientists disagree. Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured." [4]

The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim. It appears he is as well shaken by the wave of recent scandals. He told a conference in Dubai on energy recently, "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown (sic). In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian. His remarks suggest more the ‘spirit of Woodstock’ in 1969 than of what is supposed to be the world’s leading climate authority.


[1] Fred Pearce, Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim, 11 January 2010, accessed in http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news.

[2] F. William Engdahl, UN IPCC Climate Change chief in Conflict of Interest Scandal, December 27, 2009.

[3] Seth Borenstein, UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers, AP, January 20, 2010.

[4] Ibid.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots

Mike Adams – Natural News January 17, 2010

The CDC is engaged in a very clever, statistically devious spin campaign, and nearly every journalist in the mainstream media has fallen for its ploy. No one has yet reported what I'm about to reveal here.

It all started with the CDC's recent release of new statistics about swine flu fatalities, infection rates and vaccination rates. According to the CDC:

• 61 million Americans were vaccinated against swine flu (about 20% of the U.S. population). The CDC calls this a "success" even though it means 4 out of 5 people rejected the vaccines.

• 55 million people "became ill" from swine flu infections.

• 246,000 Americans were hospitalized due to swine flu infections.

• 11,160 Americans died from the swine flu.

Base on these statistics, the CDC is now desperately urging people to get vaccinated because they claim the pandemic might come back and vaccines are the best defense.

But here's the part you're NOT being told.

The CDC statistics lie by omission. They do not reveal the single most important piece of information about H1N1 vaccines: How many of the people who died from the swine flu had already been vaccinated?

Many who died had already been vaccinated

The CDC is intentionally not tracking how many of the dead were previously vaccinated. They want you (and mainstream media journalists) to mistakenly believe that ZERO deaths occurred in those who were vaccinated. But this is blatantly false. Being vaccinated against H1N1 swine flu offers absolutely no reduction in mortality from swine flu infections.

And that means roughly 20% of the 11,160 Americans who died from the swine flu were probably already vaccinated against swine flu. That comes to around 2,200 deaths in people who were vaccinated!

How do I know that swine flu vaccines don't reduce infection mortality? Because I've looked through all the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials that have ever been conducted on H1N1 vaccines. It didn't take me very long, because the number of such clinical trials is ZERO.

That's right: There is not a single shred of evidence in existence today that scientifically supports the myth that H1N1 vaccines reduce mortality from H1N1 infections. The best evidence I can find on vaccines that target seasonal flu indicates a maximum mortality reduction effect of somewhere around 1% of those who are vaccinated. The other 99% have the same mortality rate as people who were not vaccinated.

So let's give the recent H1N1 vaccines the benefit of the doubt and let's imagine that they work just as well as other flu vaccines. That means they would reduce the mortality rate by 1%. So out of the 2,200 deaths that took place in 2009 in people who were already vaccinated, the vaccine potentially may have saved 22 people.

61 million injections add up to bad public health policy

So let's see: 61 million people are injected with a potentially dangerous vaccine, and the actual number "saved" from the pandemic is conceivably just 22. Meanwhile, the number of people harmed by the vaccine is almost certainly much, much higher than 22. These vaccines contain nervous system disruptors and inflammatory chemicals that can cause serious health problems. Some of those problems won't be evident for years to come... future Alzheimer's victims, for example, will almost certainly those who received regular vaccines, I predict.

Injecting 61 million people with a chemical that threatens the nervous system in order to avoid 22 deaths – and that's the best case! – is an idiotic public health stance. America would have been better off doing nothing rather than hyping up a pandemic in order to sell more vaccines to people who don't need them.

Better yet, what the USA could have done that would have been more effective is handing out bottles of Vitamin D to 61 million people. At no more cost than the vaccines, the bottles of vitamin D supplements would have saved thousands of lives and offered tremendously importantly additional benefits such as preventing cancer and depression, too.

The one question the CDC does not want you to ask

Through its release of misleading statistics, the CDC wants everyone to believe that all of the people who died from H1N1 never received the H1N1 vaccine. That's the implied mythology behind the release of their statistics. And yet they never come right out and say it, do they? They never say, "None of these deaths occurred in patients who had been vaccinated against H1N1."

They can't say that because it's simply not true. It would be a lie. And if that lie were exposed, people might begin to ask questions like, "Well gee, if some of the people who were killed by the swine flu were already vaccinated against swine flu, then doesn't that mean the vaccine doesn't protect us from dying?"

That's the number one question that the CDC absolutely, positively does not want people to start asking.

So they just gloss over the point and imply that vaccines offer absolute protection against H1N1 infections. But even the CDC's own scientists know that's complete bunk. Outright quackery. No vaccine is 100% effective. In fact, when it comes to influenza, no vaccine is even 10% effective at reducing mortality. There's not even a vaccine that's 5% effective. And there's never been a single shred of credible scientific information that says a flu vaccine is even 1% effective.

So how effective are these vaccines, really? There are a couple thousand vaccinated dead people whose own deaths help answer that question: They're not nearly as effective as you've been led to believe.

They may not be effective at all.

Crunching the numbers: Why vaccines just don't add up

Think about this: 80% of Americans refused to get vaccinated against swine flu. That's roughly 240 million people.

Most of those 240 million people were probably exposed to the H1N1 virus at some point over the last six months because the virus was so widespread.

How many of those 240 million people were actually killed by H1N1? Given the CDC's claimed total of deaths at 11,160, if you take 80% of that (because that's the percentage who refused to be vaccinated), you arrive at 8,928. So roughly 8,900 people died out of 240 million. That's a death rate among the un-vaccinated population of .0000372

With a death rate of .0000372, the swine flu killed roughly 1 out of every 26,700 people who were NOT vaccinated. So even if you skipped the vaccine, you had a 26,699 out of 26,700 chance of surviving.

Those are pretty good odds. Ridiculously good. You have a 700% greater chance of being struck by lightning in your lifetime, by the way.

What it all means is that NOT getting vaccinated against the swine flu is actually a very reasonable, intelligent strategy for protecting your health. Mathematically, it is the smarter play.

Because, remember: Some of the dead victims of H1N1 got vaccinated. In fact, I personally challenge the CDC to release statistics detailing what percentage of the dead people had previously received such vaccines.

The headline to this article, "Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots" is a direct challenge to the CDC, actually. If the CDC believes this headline is wrong -- and that the number of vaccinated Americans who died from H1N1 is zero -- then why don't they say so on the record?

The answer? Because they'd be laughed right out of the room. Everybody who has been following this with any degree of intelligence knows that the H1N1 vaccine was a medical joke from the start. There is no doubt that many of those who died from H1N1 were previously vaccinated. The CDC just doesn't want you to know how many (and they hope you'll assume it's zero).

Where are all the real journalists?

I find it especially fascinating that the simple question of "How many of the dead were previously vaccinated?" has never been asked in print by a single journalist in any mainstream newspaper or media outline across the country. Not the NY Times, not WashingtonPost.com, not the WSJ, LA Times or USA Today. (At least, not that I'm aware of. If you find one that does, let me know and I'll link to their article!)

Isn't there a single journalist in the entire industry that has the journalistic courage to ask this simple question of the CDC? Why do these mainstream journalists just reprint the CDC's statistics without asking a single intelligent question about them?

Why is all the intelligent, skeptical reporting about H1N1 found only in the alternative press or independent media sites?

You already know the answer, but I'll say it anyway: Because most mainstream media journalists are just part of the propaganda machine, blindly reprinting distorted statistics from "authorities" without ever stopping to question those authorities.

The MSM today, in other words, is often quite pathetic. Far from the independent media mindset that used to break big stories like Watergate, today's mainstream media is little more than a mouthpiece for the corporatocracy that runs our nation. The MSM serves the financial interests of the corporations, just as the CDC and WHO do. That's why they're all spouting the same propaganda with their distorted stories about H1N1 swine flu.

But those who are intelligent enough to ask skeptical questions about H1N1 already realize what an enormous con the pandemic was. In the end, it turned out to be a near-harmless virus that was hyped up by the CDC, WHO and drug companies in order to sell hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines that are now about to be dumped down the drain as useless.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Jesse Ventura's New TV Show - truTV

Former Navy SEAL, professional wrestler, and Minnesota governor, Jesse Ventura, recently (Wednesday, December 2, 2009) launched a new television show on the truTV (formerly known as Court TV) cable channel. The official website of tru TV is added as a link to this blog. A few episodes covering topics like HAARP, 9/11, Secret Societies, Big Brother, 2012, Manchurian Candidate etc., have been telecasted so far. If Jesse is true and honest in his initiative, it should help reach some more sheeples who are yet to be awakened.

The various Truth Movements, "Conspiracy Theories" and its wide reach with the help of Internet, Radio talk shows and TV shows similar to truTV etc., seemed to have had a positive impact on the minds of at least some sheeples about the credibility and obvious existence of a conspiracy. People are beginning to understand that
something doesn't seem right somewhere with the onslaught of the bogus 'War on Terror', 'Global Warming', 'Economic Collapse', 'Health Care debacle', 'Medical and Vaccine scam' etc. Perhaps, there must be something more to what we are being told by our Main Stream Media (MSM). MSMs have become simply mouthpieces for government propaganda and are no more reliable in any degree. The alternative media and news are the only sources of our information or knowledge and we need to retain it at every cost. Those who do not believe that a conspiracy exists, hatched by the wealthy and powerful individuals to steal our liberties and turn us into slaves, they are deceiving themselves and still living in their psychotic dream world.

The powers that be do not want the public to be awakened to the truth rather be dumbed down with the garbage propagated by their controlled media and paid clowns. However, various "consparicy theorists" have exposed the lie of 9/11, war on terror, global warming, swine flu etc., beyond a shadow of doubt. This reality with "conspiracy theories" have swayed a huge population from across the globe and had slowly began to rock the boat. The elites are now trying to choke us by daring to take away the very Freedom of Speech that is granted by the Constitution. Recently, Obama's regulatory czar, Caas Sunstein, argued that US Government should ban all "Conspiracy Theorizing". He seems to be totally unhappy with the way how Global Warming and several such myths were busted and suggests infiltrating all the Conspiracies by planting government agents within extremist consparicy groups that would eventually destroy the credibility of the obvious consparicies. If such weird and ruthless laws ever get passed by the US Government, that will be the end of free speech.

In the wake of all this chaos, it's plausible that confusions and divisons within truth movements and "conspiracy theories" could arise. Therefore, people should be aware of such a possibility. I wish and hope that Jesse Ventura's new venture won't be a controlled-opposition or a channel for polluting the entire pot, cleverly and cunningly put out by the criminal elites in power; rather, I wish and hope he would stand for the truth. Further, if there is truth and substance to his broadcast, we can also expect a ban on his telecast.

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

By Aaron Klein

Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions

Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern

Cass Sunstein

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."

Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

Read more about Cass Sunstein's agenda in "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech"

Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

  • "The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."

  • "The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

  • "The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."

  • "The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."

  • "That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."

  • "The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."

Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

He continued: "The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of 'mind control.'”

Sunstein's paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November's climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Sunstein: Ban 'right wing' rumors

Sunstein's paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.

WND reported that in a recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove "false rumors" while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such "rumors."

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."

Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers' apartment.

'New Deal Fairness Doctrine'

WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a "First Amendment New Deal" – a new "Fairness Doctrine" that would include the establishment of a panel of "nonpartisan experts" to ensure "diversity of view" on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein's radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book "The Partial Constitution," received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the "Fairness Doctrine," the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed "equitable and balanced."

Sunstein introduces what he terms his "First Amendment New Deal" to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that "purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming."

Sunstein wrote it is "worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well."

He proposes "compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view."

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.

Writes Sunstein: "The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation."

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, "stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues."

He continues: "In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that 'the freedom of speech' is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard."

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts' unwillingness to "require something like a Fairness Doctrine" to be a result of "the judiciary's lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority."

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

"Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned," Sunstein writes.

But, he says, "at the very least, regulative 'fairness doctrines' would raise no real doubts" constitutionally.


Monday, January 11, 2010


By Lucy Johnston

HUNDREDS of public sector workers who claim their lives have been wrecked by vaccines say the Government has abandoned them.

Up to 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, prison officers, police officers, forensic scientists and binmen say they have developed serious physical and mental health problems after injections essential for their work over the past 10 years. All have given up their jobs and some are now 60 per cent disabled.

Last night it emerged they are to miss out on payouts, prompting furore among campaigners. More than 150 MPs have lent their support to demands for a better deal for the victims.

Olivia Price, of the Vaccine Victim Support Group, said: “These people have given their lives in the service of looking after others and this is how they’re repaid. They’ve lost their careers and are a burden to their families. It is very degrading.”

Frontline health workers, social workers, prison officers and binmen have to be vaccinated against hepatitis B as a condition of their employment.

This is to protect them from contracting potentially fatal conditions from infected blood through needle injuries or physical assaults.

Although they are not legally forced to have the vaccinations, without them they are not allowed to work.

Experts believe the injections caused the health problems, which include chronic fatigue, muscle pain, weakness and cognitive problems, because illnesses developed soon after vaccination. In one case Steve Robinson, a previously fit 43-year-old father of three, was vaccinated six years ago against hepatitis A, B and polio, tetanus and diphtheria as part of his work as a forensic specialist.

Two days later he became ill and developed muscle weakness and chronic fatigue. Mr Robinson, from Morpeth, Northumberland, is now 60 per cent disabled, which an industrial injuries tribunal put down to the vaccinations.

He has also been diagnosed with macrophagic myofascitis, a disabling condition which may be caused by the aluminum in vaccines. He also suffers from problems that cause him to fall with no warning. He said: “Before I had the vaccinations I was very healthy, a keen mountain biker and enjoyed walking and keeping fit.

“Now I have very poor mobility and walk with sticks, I am constantly tired.” In up to 10 of the 200 cases, Government officials have already ruled, on the balance of probabilities, that the vaccines caused the damage.

Campaigners say these victims should be entitled to payouts of up to £120,000 through the Government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, like other people who have suffered side effects, but the hepatitis B vaccine is excluded so they get nothing.

Payouts are restricted to the industrial injuries scheme but this is a long and difficult process and, according to campaigners, results in “paltry” sums. So far, fewer than 10 have successfully claimed this money. Ian Stewart, Labour MP for Eccles, has tabled an Early Day Motion on the scandal which has been backed by more than 150 MPs of all political parties.

He said: “These casualties are completely innocent. Their lives, and those of their families, have been sadly diminished through no fault of their own.

“The difficult truth is that what we have in the UK is not fit for purpose.”

A spokesman for the Payment Scheme, said: “Adults who suffer adverse reactions to vaccines given as a requirement of their employment can claim compensation through Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit or private schemes through their terms of employment.”


Friday, January 8, 2010

The Drugging of Our Children

Millions of children in America are put on psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin, Paxil, Zoloft and even Prozac for presumed disorders such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD). There is no proper medical diagonostic methods to determine who has ADHD and who has not. Yet, around 6 to 7 million children in America takes one of these drugs every morning before going to school. According to experts, these drugs help if the person is clinically depressed; but if not, the drugs can have deadly side-effects on some children. The documentary "The Drugging of Our Children" shows how millions of children in America are premanently brain-damaged by use of these anti-depressants and stimulants which are often prescribed without proper diagnosis. It is said that doctors rely on a set of standardized assesments as well as observations and impressions of teachers and guardians to decide whether a child has ADHD or not. It looks like there is an accepted code of behaviour according to which a child is supposed to behave and anyone who thinks or acts a bit outside of the accepted code is considered abnormal and has to be drugged in order to 'normalize' their behaviour. When children are put on these mind-altering drugs for long periods of time, the consequences are so bad that they can even turn out to become drug addicts and criminals. There should be no surprise to the soaring number of crimes and violence in America, since many children who are drugged from a very early age turn into full fledged drug addicts, criminals and psychics, by the time they reach adulthood. The school system works hand-in-glove with various government agencies to force parents to drug their children, threatening those who refuse with the prospect of having their children taken out of their homes.

As cited in the video, there are several agencies that benifit from this crisis. The school receives more federal funding on behalf of the number of children with disorders, the classrooms become more managable for the teachers, the pharmaceutical companies make huge profit over these drugs and consequently the physicians who prescribe it as well. One should not forget the fact that the Big Brother also has got a double advantage in drugging its children: On one hand it gets to have control over the thoughts and actions of the children from a very early age as well as mould their behaviour according to certain stipulated 'set of beliefs', while on the other hand, the crimes and violence that emanate as a result of this crisis can be used to impose further control and restrictions on the society as a whole. This leads to more and more powers being taken away from the people (Democracy) and vested in the hands of the government controlled by a handful of criminals (Fascism).

Each child is different and cannot be expected to behave the same way as another. Some are hyperactive or more energetic than others while some others are lethargic and shy. None of these conditions can be considered as a disorder at the face value. The differences in activity levels and behaviours in children could be caused by various factors such as diet, environment etc. However, today, each of this condition is given a specific label or defined by certain terminology. Once a child is identified under any of these labels, it is considered a disorder and hence the child has to be treated by drugs. So if a child is a bit too shy, he/she falls under the label of 'Social Anxiety' that needs to be treated by Paxil. The old method of disciplining a child , by setting limits and correcting misbehaviour, by teachers in the school and parents at home is thrown out of the window. Thanks to the Humanist Manifesto; children should not be punished for the purposes of correction anymore, instead we have in place a new method and that is drugging them. Drugging makes the children docile thereby premanently disabling their ability to think while continually being instructed to act or behave in the way the controllers want them to be.

Researchers say, there is enough scientific evidence to support that anti-depressants and stimulants casue out of control abnormal behaviours in children. They discovered that it's hard to find an academic psychiatrist who is not in the payroll of the drug company. The New England Journal of Medicine, in 2002, looked for an expert on anti-depressant drugs to write a review on it and they could not find anyone who qualified as an expert who was not on the payroll of one of the companies making these drugs. In an other case, Eli Lilly and Co., found that their patients taking Prozac had a higher suicide attempt rate than if the same patient were on a sugar pill. So they covered-up that data. In fact, they covered up their own internal investigation results that anyone on Prozac is 12 times more likely to attempt suicide than other people using other anti-depressant. The Washington Post in 2005 reported that, "After the arrival of Prozac in 1988, these drugs have transformed psychiatry in the United States, even as persistent critics have warned that their benefits were hyped and their risks ignored. A spate of lawsuits in recent years have claimed that the drugs were responsible for violent and suicidal behavior."

The criminal behaviours evoked in these children had led to the escalation of a whole new phenomenon of school schootings in the recent decades. However, the administration claims that these school shootings are happening becasue kids have easy access to guns. This is simply not true and can be easily discredited. In the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s, kids had access to guns, possibly more than they even do now and no one heard of these school shooting phenomena. The difference between then and now, with this being a whole new phenomena, is the drugs. Many children who are put on these mind-altering drugs were said to have hallucinations of wild dreams and violent behaviours. On the other hand, guns have been there for many decades. As cited by parents and several medical experts in the video, they do not believe that the primary reason why kids kill other kids is because they have easy access to firearms. People of older generation lived with guns all around in their house and had eassy access to it in their childhood and yet never fired anyone. So it should be clear that guns are not the cause of the problem, as the administration would want us to believe, but it's the drugs that is driving the kids insane to pick up guns and shoot their classmates. Despite this clean evidence, the administration continues to go ahead with its rhetoric. Perhaps, they have something to gain, by lying to the public; as you will soon see below.

The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution grants the people of America the rights to bear arms. That means Americans must have been in possession of guns since the time America was founded. Though the idea of allowing citizens to own firearms sound ridiculous at first, the fact that the rights to bear arms occupy second place in the list of amendments should itself show its importance. The sole purpose why the founding fathers of America allowed the people to bear arms was not for self-defense or protection of one's property or family against theft or dacoits but was that, if ever the Government turns oppressive against its own people, the government should know that the people have the weapons. In other words, it was to deter any sort of oppression or tyranny from the government that the people were allowed to bear arms. It is to prevent the government from taking away powers of the people, which is indeed the essence of democracy.

The sad reality is that today, America is inching towards a fascist country controlled by a bunch of corporate criminals and much of the brain-dead Americans are hardly bothered about it. What's happening in America, in the words of some scholars, is exactly what happened in Nazi Germany, where the individual rights, freedom and privacy are gradually being eroded on a daily basis. The criminals who run the government knows that in order to control the public and suppress any sort of resistance that may possibly arise from them, the civilians have to be disarmed first. Hitler said: "the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow citizens to carry arms." In this scenario, the people possessing guns are a threat to the sustenance of the criminals in power. Hence, the civilians should be completely stripped of their arms; a right granted by the Constitution of America. It can't be any simpler than that when Attorney General, Janet Reno says: "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." Thus, prohibition of private firearms is the ultimate goal of the administration, and therefore the escalation of firearm related crisis is an essential evil for them. This is simply the reason why the adminsitration wants us to believe the lie that easy access to guns is the cause of firearm related problems while in reality it's the drugs what actually drive these people to pick up firearms and shoot each other. Once the problem gets to a point where people can take no more, they will themselves ask for the disarming of the civilian population. So there is no better method to achieve the goal of prohibiting private firearms than to allow the firearm related crimes to happen which in turn is the result of drugging the children.

Once Americans are stripped of their right to bear arms, it's only a cakewalk for the criminals to control and subjugate them. Once America falls, the rest of the nations will follow easily. This is also an UN 's agenda; to disarm every people of their weapons and eventually disarm every nation of their military, so that a totalitarian World Government can be put in place which will get the protection of a one world army (something similar to NATO) to any resistance from any people or nation. America being the single most powerful and mighty nation, the destruction of it is sought after first.

Some hard questions:
Who really controls the kids of America? Doesn't parents have any rights over their children? Are we supposed to believe that a government, run by a bunch of corrupt and criminal satanic cabals care more about our children than their own parents? And where is freedom in the supposed land of the free and where is human rights when it comes to rights of the parents to protect their children?

"An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham", whose "cowardly practice of `toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime....Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market."