Couple’s son, 2, taken into care by social workers after they ‘refused to feed him junk food’
A two year-old boy was taken away by social services and put into foster care after his parents, Paul and Lisa Hessey, refused to follow doctors’ orders and feed him junk food, they have claimed.
The Derbyshire couple, both 48, had been concerned about heath of their son, Zak as he was not eating properly.
Mrs Hessey and her lorry driver husband, took their son, who weighed just 17 lbs, to Chesterfield Royal Hospital in July.
In June 1979, an unknown person or persons under the pseudonym R. C. Christian hired Elberton Granite Finishing Company to build the structure.One popular hypothesis is that the author pseudonym may be a tribute to the legendary 14th-century founder of Rosicrucianism, Christian Rosenkreuz. (Sullivan, 2009)Before The Guide Stones in 1977, the man who would become President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
Nefarious plots of immoral men of power driven by a perversion a base instincts rising from limbic brains, have always be grasp at world. They soon realize that no one man can hold it all so they form alliances and unions yet, the world is still too big. Justification in their mind to make the world a smaller place, engraved on the Georgia Guidestones.
The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true. (Johnson, 2009) Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see as mankind’s oldest greatest threat, overpopulation. In each case, the proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear. (Paul R. Ehrlich, 1977)
These proposals include; on Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” (Paul R. Ehrlich, 1977, p. 837)
On page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.” (Paul R. Ehrlich, 1977, p. 786)
And finally pages 787 and 788: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock.
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.” (Paul R. Ehrlich, 1977, pp. 787,788)
From the pages of 1977 to the headlines of 2007, Plastics In Common Household Items May Cause Fertility Defects. The contaminant bisphenol-A (BPA)–widely used to make many plastics found in food storage containers and dental products–can have long-term effects in female development, according to a recent study by Yale School of Medicine researchers. (University, 2007)
The question of legality and morality is addresses on page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size.
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” (Paul R. Ehrlich, 1977, p. 838)
The principle of habeas corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that person has been convicted of a crime. Should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the mere act of pregnancy be made a crime? Many of the bizarre schemes suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.
There is no justification for population control what is highlighted in Ecoscience, is a frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled top-down environmental movement. Shocking and draconian population control plans need people to the horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control, sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.
The brand new trailer for Alex Jones’ highly anticipated upcoming documentary Fall Of The Republic can now be viewed via Prison Planet.tv, where subscribers will be the first to see the new movie later this month.
Fall Of The Republic, lands on October 21st and we need everyone to see this film, make copies, and spread the information virally to achieve an even bigger impact than we did with The Obama Deception, which has woken up so many people to the almighty fraud that is being perpetrated under the guise of an administration that promised “change” yet has advanced the agenda of the new world order at lightening speed.
Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency. A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet. A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-feudal slavery.
With legislation racing through Congress and the Senate that will fundamentally alter our standard of living and serve as the entree for the next, and potentially final, round of globalist looting, the increasingly irate grass roots of America is all that stands in the way of the complete transformation of the United States into a banana republic micromanaged by control freaks who seek to regulate, tax and rule over every aspect of our private lives.
Only by expanding the growing popular fight back against this tyranny can we have any chance of stopping it in its tracks, and Fall Of The Republic will be your weapon to unlock minds and tear down the support pillars of the left-right paradigm that still uphold the “pimp game” being run against us all by the bankster gangsters, the globalists, and their front men like Barack H. Obama.
This may be the fall of the Republic, but it will also come to be known as the rise of the resistance!
In June 2006, Muckraker Report investigative reporter Ed Haas contacted the FBI to ask why 9/11 was not specifically mentioned on Bin Laden’s wanted page on the FBI website.
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s most wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11,” he was told by FBI agent Rex Tomb.
Sibel Edmonds was dismissed after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001.
During a court case that arose out of her dismissal and the evidence surrounding 9/11, reporters were barred from recording any details of the case, and Edmonds herself was barred from even entering the court room. When Edmonds’ case was dismissed in May 2005, no reason was provided, and no opinion cited.
During an interview on the Mike Malloy Show In July 2009, Edmonds stated, “To say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban – those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”
The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. “I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
WHO TOLD HIM THIS??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.
In April 2004, USA Today reported, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the targets was the World Trade Center.
In addition, the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise for the morning of 9/11 that was based around a corporate jet crashing into the agency’s headquarters.
On September 12th 2007, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 reported that the mysterious “white plane” spotted flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11 was in fact the Air Force’s E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit.
Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.
“CNN acknowledges that, despite its identification, the absence of the aircraft from official investigations, together with the Pentagon’s denial that it was a military plane and the insistence by the Pentagon, Secret Service, and FAA that they have no explanation for the incident, may continue to raise suspicions,” reported Raw Story.
Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even if these planes had traveled at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have been defending the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.
Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.
Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am. Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.
“A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania. Planes were scrambled, but ineffectively, as they did not know where to go or what targets they were to intercept. And once the shootdown order was given, it was not communicated to the pilots. In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to “take out” hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to “ID type and tail.”
(Mid 2004) The team of investigators on the 9/11 Commission that is investigating the events of the morning of September 11 comes to believe that a key part of Vice President Dick Cheney’s account is false. The team, led by John Farmer, is convinced that the decision to authorize the military to shoot down threatening aircraft on 9/11 was made by Cheney alone, not by President Bush. According to journalist and author Philip Shenon: “If Farmer’s team was right, the shootdown order was almost certainly unconstitutional, a violation of the military chain of command, which has no role for the vice president. In the absence of the president, military orders should have been issued by Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, bypassing the vice president entirely.”
Scores of mainstream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.
In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.
As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero.”
Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.
Eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions can be found at the following links.
An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been “lost” before admitting that they made the “error” of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.
In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”
Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.
However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cellphone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.
According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.
The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter. The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane. Images before the partial collapse of the impact zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner, especially when contrasted with other images showing airplane crashes into buildings.
What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”
As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon defensive system was not activated., are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?
In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.
Newsweek twice reported that top Pentagon officials had got a warning of the impending attack on September 10th, and cancelled their flights for the next day. This confirms that these officials knew both the general locations of the attack and the method of using jetliners as bombs.
“On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.”
“Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill.”
Mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown was set to fly into New York on the morning of September 11. However, he got a call from what he described as his “airport security” late September 10th advising against flying due to a security threat. Pacifica Radio later reported that the source of the warning was Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.
The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cellphones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.
Aviation Week (07/20/04) described this new technology in an authoritative report published in July 2004:
“Qualcomm and American Airlines are exploring [July 2004] ways for passengers to use commercial cell phones inflight for air-to-ground communication. In a recent 2-hr. proof-of-concept flight, representatives from government and the media used commercial Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) third-generation cell phones to place and receive calls and text messages from friends on the ground.”
On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of “state secret.” To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.
“President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel’s top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday.”
A few days after the attack, several newspapers reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC.
In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
Director of the U.S. “Star Wars” space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a member of a group which doubts the government’s version of 9/11
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
“I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government ….
Those of us in the military took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!”
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
“This isn’t about party, it isn’t about Bush Bashing. It’s about our country, our constitution, and our future. …
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? ….
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can’t handle it? …”
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called “perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that“the evidence points at” 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 – 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 – 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said “The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup.”
Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attach� in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government’s version of the events of 9/11.
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and Flight Research Program Manager for NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain A. Deets) says:
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones) stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university, with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers “were brought down by planted explosives.”
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S. Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the Northern California – Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by controlled demolition.
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court, with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby Kennedy’s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence “Terry” Brunner) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government’s version of 9/11., and asks whether the Neocons were behind 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career (Mark Conrad) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the government’s version of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year career (William Veale) said:
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the 9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
Finally, those who attack people who question the government’s version of 9/11 as “crazy” may wish to review the list of mental health professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R. Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials, politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who question 9/11 — literally thousands — to list in one place. Here are a few additional people to consider:
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a who’s who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new investigation into 9/11
Cab driveradmits the 911 Pentagon attack was planned.Citizen Investigation Team visit Lloyd\’s cab to further investigate the damage done from the alleged downed light pole according to the official story which contradicts more than 13 eye witnesses who state that the actual flight path of the Boeing 757 was north of the Citgo gas station.This evidence obviously implicates Lloyd as an accomplice to the staged event.
This is a seemingly older story but the official story still claims this true. There is no network coverage of what would be a very important story so I re-posted it here. Filmed by the people at
Citizen Investigation Team presents an interview with taxicab driver Lloyd England in regards to the 9/11 Pentagon attack. Lloyd’s account of a jet airliner clipping light pole #1 causing it to spear his windshield has been thrown into serious question as a result of testimony from the witnesses at the CITGO station who all place the plane on the north side far from the light pole that allegedly hit his cab. At this point the debate about what happened at the Pentagon boils down to whether you choose to believe the CITGO witnesses or Lloyd. CIT asks you to make up your own mind but suggests you watch Lloyd’s first-hand testimony in this presentation after viewing the testimony from the CITGO witnesses presented in The PentaCon for free on our website: http://www.ThePentaCon.com
This video was taken on Tuesday, August 25th, 2009 at Rep. Jim
Moran’s (D-VA) Town Hall meeting on Obama care, held at South Lakes High School in Reston, VA.
In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass
sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily
implants to prevent pregnancies
President Obama’s top science and technology advisor
John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the
formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police
force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control,
including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via
the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that
would prevent couples from having children.
The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on
the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people
couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.
It was only when another Internet blog
obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about
what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.
This issue is more prescient than ever because Holdren
and his colleagues are now at the forefront of efforts to combat
“climate change” through similarly insane programs focused around
geoengineering the planet. As we reported in April,
Holdren recently advocated “Large-scale geoengineering projects
designed to cool the Earth,” such as “shooting pollution particles into
the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays,” which many have
pointed out is already occurring via chemtrails.
Ecoscience discusses a number of ways in which
the global population could be reduced to combat what the authors see
as mankind’s greatest threat – overpopulation. In each case, the
proposals are couched in sober academic rhetoric, but the horrifying
foundation of what Holdren and his co-authors are advocating is clear.
These proposals include;
– Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the
entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and
food supply.
– Legalizing “compulsory abortions,” ie forced
abortions carried out against the will of the pregnant women, as is
common place in Communist China where women who have already had one
child and refuse to abort the second are kidnapped off the street by
the authorities before a procedure is carried out to forcibly abort the
baby.
– Babies who are born out of wedlock or to
teenage mothers to be forcibly taken away from their mother by the
government and put up for adoption. Another proposed measure would
force single mothers to demonstrate to the government that they can
care for the child, effectively introducing licensing to have children.
– Implementing a system of “involuntary birth
control,” where both men and women would be mandated to have an
infertility device implanted into their body at puberty and only have
it removed temporarily if they received permission from the government
to have a baby.
– Permanently sterilizing people who the
authorities deem have already had too many children or who have
contributed to “general social deterioration”.
– Formally passing a law that criminalizes having more than two children, similar to the one child policy in Communist China.
– This would all be overseen by a transnational
and centralized “planetary regime” that would utilize a “global police
force” to enforce the measures outlined above. The “planetary regime”
would also have the power to determine population levels for every
country in the world.
The quotes from the book are included below. We also include comments by the author of the blog who provided the screenshots of the relevant passages.
Screenshots of the relevant pages and the quotes in their full context
are provided at the end of the excerpts. The quotes from the book
appear as text indents and in bold. The quotes from the author of the
blog are italicized.
Page 837: Compulsory abortions would be legal
“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory
population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory
abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the
population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
As noted in the FrontPage article cited above,
Holdren “hides behind the passive voice” in this passage, by saying “it
has been concluded.” Really? By whom? By the authors of the book,
that’s whom. What Holdren’s really saying here is, “I have determined
that there’s nothing unconstitutional about laws which would force
women to abort their babies.” And as we will see later, although
Holdren bemoans the fact that most people think there’s no need for
such laws, he and his co-authors believe that the population crisis is
so severe that the time has indeed come for “compulsory
population-control laws.” In fact, they spend the entire book arguing
that “the population crisis” has already become “sufficiently severe to
endanger the society.”
Page 786: Single mothers should have their babies taken away by the government; or they could be forced to have abortions
“One way to carry out this disapproval might be
to insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for
adoption—especially those born to minors, who generally are not capable
of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother really wished
to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through adoption
proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care for it.
Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult for single
people than for married couples, in recognition of the relative
difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be possible to
require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an
alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
Holdren and his co-authors once again speculate about
unbelievably draconian solutions to what they feel is an overpopulation
crisis. But what’s especially disturbing is not that Holdren has merely
made these proposals — wrenching babies from their mothers’ arms and
giving them away; compelling single mothers to prove in court that they
would be good parents; and forcing women to have abortions, whether
they wanted to or not — but that he does so in such a dispassionate,
bureaucratic way. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous and “level-headed”
tone he takes: the proposals are nightmarish, however euphemistically
they are expressed.
Holdren seems to have no grasp of the emotional bond between
mother and child, and the soul-crushing trauma many women have felt
throughout history when their babies were taken away from them
involuntarily.
This kind of clinical, almost robotic discussion of laws that
would affect millions of people at the most personal possible level is
deeply unsettling, and the kind of attitude that gives scientists a bad
name. I’m reminded of the phrase “banality of evil.”
Not that it matters, but I myself am “pro-choice” — i.e. I think
that abortion should not be illegal. But that doesn’t mean I’m
pro-abortion — I don’t particularly like abortions, but I do believe
women should be allowed the choice to have them. But John Holdren here
proposes to take away that choice — to force women to have abortions.
One doesn’t need to be a “pro-life” activist to see the horror of this
proposal — people on all sides of the political spectrum should be
outraged. My objection to forced abortion is not so much to protect the
embryo, but rather to protect the mother from undergoing a medical
procedure against her will. And not just any medical procedure, but one
which she herself (regardless of my views) may find particularly
immoral or traumatic.
There’s a bumper sticker that’s popular in liberal areas which
says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one.” Well, John Holdren wants
to MAKE you have one, whether you’re against it or not.
Page 787-8: Mass sterilization of humans though drugs in the water supply is OK as long as it doesn’t harm livestock
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple
foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most
proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose
some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say
nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor
does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a
substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be
uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by
individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity
among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side
effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex,
children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
OK, John, now you’re really starting to scare me. Putting
sterilants in the water supply? While you correctly surmise that this
suggestion “seems to horrify people more than most proposals,” you
apparently are not among those people it horrifies. Because in your
extensive list of problems with this possible scheme, there is no
mention whatsoever of any ethical concerns or moral issues. In your
view, the only impediment to involuntary mass sterilization of the
population is that it ought to affect everyone equally and not have any
unintended side effects or hurt animals. But hey, if we could sterilize
all the humans safely without hurting the livestock, that’d be peachy!
The fact that Holdren has no moral qualms about such a deeply invasive
and unethical scheme (aside from the fact that it would be difficult to
implement) is extremely unsettling and in a sane world all by itself
would disqualify him from holding a position of power in the
government.
Page 786-7: The government could control women’s reproduction by
either sterilizing them or implanting mandatory long-term birth control
Involuntary fertility control
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third
child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than
vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that
could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired
opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The
capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with
official permission, for a limited number of births.”
Note well the phrase “with official permission” in the above
quote. John Holdren envisions a society in which the government
implants a long-term sterilization capsule in all girls as soon as they
reach puberty, who then must apply for official permission to
temporarily remove the capsule and be allowed to get pregnant at some
later date. Alternately, he wants a society that sterilizes all women
once they have two children. Do you want to live in such a society?
Because I sure as hell don’t.
Page 838: The kind of people who cause “social deterioration” can be compelled to not have children
“If some individuals contribute to general
social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is
compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive
responsibility—just as they can be required to exercise responsibility
in their resource-consumption patterns—providing they are not denied
equal protection.“
To me, this is in some ways the most horrifying sentence in the
entire book — and it had a lot of competition. Because here Holdren
reveals that moral judgments would be involved in determining who gets
sterilized or is forced to abort their babies. Proper, decent people
will be left alone — but those who “contribute to social deterioration”
could be “forced to exercise reproductive responsibility” which could
only mean one thing — compulsory abortion or involuntary sterilization.
What other alternative would there be to “force” people to not have
children? Will government monitors be stationed in irresponsible
people’s bedrooms to ensure they use condoms? Will we bring back the
chastity belt? No — the only way to “force” people to not become or
remain pregnant is to sterilize them or make them have abortions.
But what manner of insanity is this? “Social deterioration”? Is
Holdren seriously suggesting that “some” people contribute to social
deterioration more than others, and thus should be sterilized or forced
to have abortions, to prevent them from propagating their kind? Isn’t
that eugenics, plain and simple? And isn’t eugenics universally
condemned as a grotesquely evil practice?
We’ve already been down this road before. In one of the most
shameful episodes in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, the Supreme
Court ruled in the infamous 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the State of
Virginia had had the right to sterilize a woman named Carrie Buck
against her will, based solely on the (spurious) criteria that she was
“feeble-minded” and promiscuous, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
concluding, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Nowadays, of
course, we look back on that ruling in horror, as eugenics as a concept
has been forever discredited. In fact, the United Nations now regards
forced sterilization as a crime against humanity.
The italicized phrase at the end (”providing they are not denied
equal protection”), which Holdren seems to think gets him off the
eugenics hook, refers to the 14th Amendment (as you will see in the
more complete version of this passage quoted below), meaning that the
eugenics program wouldn’t be racially based or discriminatory — merely
based on the whim and assessments of government bureaucrats deciding
who and who is not an undesirable. If some civil servant in Holdren’s
America determines that you are “contributing to social deterioration”
by being promiscuous or pregnant or both, will government agents break
down your door and and haul you off kicking and screaming to the
abortion clinic? In fact, the Supreme Court case Skinner v. Oklahoma
already determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment distinctly prohibits state-sanctioned sterilization being
applied unequally to only certain types of people.
No no, you say, Holdren isn’t claiming that some kind of people
contribute to social deterioration more than others; rather, he’s
stating that anyone who overproduces children thereby contributes to
social deterioration and needs to be stopped from having more. If so —
how is that more palatable? It seems Holdren and his co-authors have
not really thought this through, because what they are suggesting is a
nightmarish totalitarian society. What does he envision: All women who
commit the crime of having more than two children be dragged away by
police to the government-run sterilization centers? Or — most
disturbingly of all — perhaps Holdren has thought it through, and is
perfectly OK with the kind of dystopian society he envisions in this
book.
Sure, I could imagine a bunch of drunken guys sitting around
shooting the breeze, expressing these kinds of forbidden thoughts; who
among us hasn’t looked in exasperation at a harried mother buying candy
bars and soda for her immense brood of unruly children and thought:
Lady, why don’t you just get your tubes tied already? But it’s a
different matter when the Science Czar of the United States suggests
the very same thing officially in print. It ceases being a harmless
fantasy, and suddenly the possibility looms that it could become
government policy. And then it’s not so funny anymore.
Page 838: Nothing is wrong or illegal about the government dictating family size
“In today’s world, however, the number of
children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law
regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may
lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be
able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
Why?
I’ll tell you why, John. Because the the principle of habeas
corpus upon which our nation rests automatically renders any compulsory
abortion scheme to be unconstitutional, since it guarantees the freedom
of each individual’s body from detention or interference, until that
person has been convicted of a crime. Or are you seriously suggesting
that, should bureaucrats decide that the country is overpopulated, the
mere act of pregnancy be made a crime?
I am no legal scholar, but it seems that John Holdren is even
less of a legal scholar than I am. Many of the bizarre schemes
suggested in Ecoscience rely on seriously flawed legal reasoning. The
book is not so much about science, but instead is about reinterpreting
the Constitution to allow totalitarian population-control measures.
Page 942-3: A “Planetary Regime” should control the global economy
and dictate by force the number of children allowed to be born
Toward a Planetary Regime
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United
Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a
Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population,
resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could
control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution
of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar
as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the
power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but
also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross
international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime
might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international
trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all
food on the international market.”
“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for
determining the optimum population for the world and for each region
and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional
limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of
each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the
agreed limits.”
In case you were wondering exactly who would enforce these
forced abortion and mass sterilization laws: Why, it’ll be the
“Planetary Regime”! Of course! I should have seen that one coming.
The rest of this passage speaks for itself. Once you add up all
the things the Planetary Regime (which has a nice science-fiction ring
to it, doesn’t it?) will control, it becomes quite clear that it will
have total power over the global economy, since according to Holdren
this Planetary Regime will control “all natural resources, renewable or
nonrenewable” (which basically means all goods) as well as all food,
and commerce on the oceans and any rivers “that discharge into the
oceans” (i.e. 99% of all navigable rivers). What’s left? Not much.
Page 917: We will need to surrender national sovereignty to an armed international police force
“If this could be accomplished, security might
be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue
of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the
way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if
anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial
surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”
The other shoe drops. So: We are expected to voluntarily
surrender national sovereignty to an international organization (the
“Planetary Regime,” presumably), which will be armed and have the
ability to act as a police force. And we saw in the previous quote
exactly which rules this armed international police force will be
enforcing: compulsory birth control, and all economic activity.
It would be laughable if Holdren weren’t so deadly serious. Do
you want this man to be in charge of science and technology in the
United States? Because he already is in charge.
Page 749: Pro-family and pro-birth attitudes are caused by ethnic chauvinism
“Another related issue that seems to encourage a
pronatalist attitude in many people is the question of the differential
reproduction of social or ethnic groups. Many people seem to be
possessed by fear that their group may be outbred by other groups.
White Americans and South Africans are worried there will be too many
blacks, and vice versa. The Jews in Israel are disturbed by the high
birth rates of Israeli Arabs, Protestants are worried about Catholics,
and lbos about Hausas. Obviously, if everyone tries to outbreed
everyone else, the result will be catastrophe for all. This is another
case of the “tragedy of the commons,” wherein the “commons” is the
planet Earth. Fortunately, it appears that, at least in the DCs,
virtually all groups are exercising reproductive restraint.”
This passage is not particularly noteworthy except for the
inclusion of the odd phrase “pronatalist attitude,” which Holdren
spends much of the book trying to undermine. And what exactly is a
“pronatalist attitude”? Basically it means the urge to have children,
and to like babies. If only we could suppress people’s natural urge to
want children and start families, we could solve all our problems!
What’s disturbing to me is the incredibly patronizing and
culturally imperialist attitude he displays here, basically acting like
he has the right to tell every ethnic group in the world that they
should allow themselves to go extinct or at least not increase their
populations any more. How would we feel if Andaman Islanders showed up
on the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. and announced that there
were simply too many Americans, and we therefore are commanded to stop
breeding immediately? One imagines that the attitude of every ethnic
group in the world to John Holdren’s proposal would be: Cram it, John.
Stop telling us what to do.
Page 944: As of 1977, we are facing a global overpopulation catastrophe that must be resolved at all costs by the year 2000
“Humanity cannot afford to muddle through the
rest of the twentieth century; the risks are too great, and the stakes
are too high. This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and
our descendants’ destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices
may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right
choices could lead to a much better world.”
This is the final paragraph of the book, which I include here
only to show how embarrassingly inaccurate his “scientific” projections
were. In 1977, Holdren thought we were teetering on the brink of global
catastrophe, and he proposed implementing fascistic rules and laws to
stave off the impending disaster. Luckily, we ignored his warnings, yet
the world managed to survive anyway without the need to punish
ourselves with the oppressive society which Holdren proposed. Yes,
there still is overpopulation, but the problems it causes are not as
morally repugnant as the “solutions” which John Holdren wanted us to
adopt.
SCREENSHOTS OF PAGES FROM ECOSCIENCE (CLICK FOR ENLARGEMENTS)
Front cover
Back cover
Title page
Page 749
Page 786
Page 787
Page 788
Page 789
Page 837
Page 838
Page 839
Page 917
Page 942
Page 943
Page 944
Page 1001
Page 1002
Page 1003
It is important to point out that John Holdren has never publicly
distanced himself from any of these positions in the 32 years since the
book was first published. Indeed, as you can see from the first picture
that accompanies this article, Holdren prominently displays a copy of
the book in his own personal library and is happy to be photographed
with it.
It is also important to stress that these are not just the opinions
of one man. As we have exhaustively documented, most recently in our
essay, The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies,
the positions adopted in this book echo those advocated by numerous
other prominent public figures in politics, academia and the
environmental movement for decades.
Consider the fact that people like David Rockefeller, Ted Turner,
and Bill Gates, three men who have integral ties to the eugenicist
movement, recently met with other billionaire “philanthropists” in New
York to discuss “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of
the world’s population,” according to a London Times report.
Of course, Turner completely fails to follow his own
rules on how everyone else should live their lives, having five
children and owning no less than 2 million acres of land.
The notion that these elitists merely want to slow
population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer.
Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its
health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world
population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has
been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west.
Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth
of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted
in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the
surplus population via draconian methods.
David Rockefeller’s legacy is not derived from a
well-meaning “philanthropic” urge to improve health in third world
countries, it is born out of a Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor
and those deemed racially inferior, using the justification of social
Darwinism.
As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame,
Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany
from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology
of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German
eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties
fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.
The justification for the implementation of draconian measures of
population control has changed to suit contemporary fads and trends.
What once masqueraded as concerns surrounding overpopulation has now
returned in the guise of the climate change and global warming
movement. What has not changed is the fact that at its core, this
represents nothing other than the arcane pseudo-science of eugenics
first crafted by the U.S. and British elite at the end of the 19th
century and later embraced by Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.
In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes
once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and
the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high
standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming,
creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every
facet of our lives.
The fact that the chief scientific advisor to the President of the
United States, a man with his finger on the pulse of environmental
policy, once openly advocated the mass sterilization of the U.S. public
through the food and water supply, along with the plethora of other
disgusting proposals highlighted in Ecoscience, is a
frightening prospect that wouldn’t be out of place in some kind of
futuristic sci-fi horror movie, and a startling indictment of the true
source of what manifests itself today as the elitist controlled
top-down environmental movement.
Only through bringing to light Holdren’s shocking and
draconian population control plans can we truly alert people to the
horrors that the elite have planned for us through population control,
sterilization and genocidal culling programs that are already underway.
AN
international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be
“neutralised” or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis
drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.
Staff
at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of
doctors – mainly researchers and academics – who had been negative
about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.
The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne
yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included
the words “neutralise”, “neutralised” or “discredit” against some of
the doctors’ names.
It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against
critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to
institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.
“We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,” a
Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court
by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.
Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and
Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians,
who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx.
The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was
used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach
problems as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs.
It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were
raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial
testing these potential side affects was aborted for safety reasons.
Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, 58, claims the drug caused him to
have a heart attack in 2003 after he took it for back pain and
arthritis every day from May 2001.
Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the
effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no
admission of guilt.
The company is fighting the class action in Australia.
The Federal Court was told yesterday that Merck wanted to gain the
backing of researchers and doctors – or “opinion leaders” – in the
fields of arthritis to help promote the drug to medical professionals
when it was launched in 1999.
Mr Burnside said internal emails in April 1999 from Merck staff
showed the company was not happy with what some researchers and doctors
were saying about the drug.
“It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and
thought leaders … if (they) say things you don’t like to hear, you
have to neutralise them,” he said. “It does suggest a certain culture
within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those
who disagree with you.”
The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at
Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in
October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers
who had criticised the drug.
“Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation,” he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.
“This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators … I
suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or
written on these issues.”
Mr Burnside told the court Dr Fries went on to describe instances of
intimidation, including one colleague who thought his academic
appointment had been jeopardised and another who received phone calls
alleging “anti-Merck” bias.
Dr Fries said in the letter that Merck had been systematically
playing down the side effects of Vioxx and said the company’s behaviour
“seriously impinges on academic freedom”. The court was also told a
rheumatologist on Merck’s Australian arthritis advisory board was angry
he did not find out about Merck’s decision to withdraw Vioxx until an
ABC journalist rang to tell him. Mr Burnside said James Bertouch wrote
to other members of the board saying he was “extremely disillusioned”
with the company.
“In every possible way the company exerted itself to present the
impression to the world at large that Vioxx did not provide any
increased cardio risk … when (a) it probably would and (b) it
probably did,” he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.
Peter Garling, acting for Merck, accused Mr Peterson of not taking
the drug Vioxx in the months leading up to his heart attack in December
2003.
He said Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme figures showed he did not
fill a Vioxx prescription for the drug in the two months before his
heart attack.
Mr Garling put to Mr Peterson during his cross-examination that this
was because he had retired from his job as a safety consultant and
therefore he did not need to take Vioxx because his back pain lessened.
Mr Peterson denied this meant he was not taking the drug.
“No, I wouldn’t accept that at all,” he said. “I can remember taking Vioxx regularly.”
The trial, before Justice Chris Jessop, continues.
The Sentinals Beacon 