Friday, May 11, 2007

RE: food not surprized

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *Galactic Consciousness*
Date: May 11, 2007 2:35 PM

From: Chrystalize~
Date: May 11, 2007 12:03 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Fear is God
Date: May 11, 2007 10:01 AM

Note - This is likely the biggest non-surprise 'study result' of the last 50 years. The vile, despicable commercial food industry has been POISONING hundreds of millions of children and destroying the lives of many of them for decades...with total, leering impunity. There has never been any question that these chemicals and 'additives' approved as 'safe' by the hideously corrupt Monsanto/Big Pharma/Factory Farming/AMA-dominated FDA - and the FSA in the UK - are toxic, life-altering, life-destroying POISONS.

So, now with an 'official' study finally on the table, what will U.S. food conglomerates and 'candy' companies and corporations do to voluntarily to clean up their products? Probably nothing. We all know what to expect from the FDA: more corruption, deal-making, lies, deceit, obfuscation (how about aspartame for one small example) and the ultimate sacrificing of human lives, especially our children, to the chemical additive and food preservative industries. Read these quotes from the following story carefully:

"The consequences can be very serious for both children and adults...The reaction in children can be horrendous in terms of mood swings with crying, screaming, inability to sleep...There can also be physical reactions such as difficulty in breathing on skin rashes. For a young person there is also a risk of quite angry mood swings."

Now, one would hope it wouldn't take any more information than that to enable people to also see the DIRECT CAUSAL LINK between the knowing poisoning of children's food with toxic additives and preservatives, and the mega-BILLION dollar psychotropic childhood drugging industry with its front line destroyer/killers of Ritalin and its stable of antidepressant SSRIs which permanently, physically change the brain and decimate the lives in countless human beings. Is there collusion between the 'food protection agencies' (FDA, FSA, etc) and the pharmaceutical industry? At the very LEAST, there is a luxurious, astronomically profitable trillion dollar symbiotic interaction.

The food additive chemical poisoning of our children (and adults) into aberrant, dysfunctional, 'anti-social' mental and psychological behavior which is then 'treated' by the complicit and seemingly insane psychological/medical industry which leaps to put put children on their killer medications to 'correct' what are usually nothing more than toxic chemical reactions is beyond heinous. The black humor of poisoned children being diagnosed NOT as having been poisoned but as suffering from phony disorders like ADD, ADHD and other 'anti-social' and learning disability monikers boggles the mind and should send a surge of outrage through every parent on the planet.

So, read on and don't say we, and thousands of others, haven't been trying to warn of this for the last 20-plus years. Read labels, buy only organic and NON-GMO, and try to give your children (and yourselves) a fighting chance for a normal life. God knows there are dozens of other destroyers of lives waiting and lurking to greet them as they grow up. - Jeff Rense, Editor-in-Chief

Food Additives Tied To Child Behavior Problems

The proof food additives ARE as bad as we feared.

By Sean Poulter

Parents have been warned to avoid artificial additives used in drinks, sweets and processed foods amid a link to behaviour problems in children. A study funded by the government's Food Standards Agency(FSA) is understood to have drawn a link with temper tantrums and poor concentration.
There are also concerns about allergic reactions such as asthma and rashes.

The findings are potentially explosive for the entire food industry, which faces the need to reformulate a vast array of children's products. Vyvyan Howard, professor of bio-imaging at Ulster University and an adviser to the FSA, called on parents and manufacturers to protect children. He said: "It is biologically plausible that they could be having an effect. "Parents can protect their children by avoiding foods containing the additives. I personally do not feed these sorts of foods to my 15-month-old daughter."

He called on manufacturers and supermarkets to remove the additives on a precautionary basis. He said: "It is the right thing to do to remove these additives from children's foods. They have no nutritional value, so why put them in?

"There are very tight restrictions banning these additives from foods designed for children under the age of one. "But why stop there? Children's brains and nervous systems are developing beyond the age of one."

Prof Howard is not a member of the FSA committee assessing the latest research, however he did advise on how the study should be conducted. Experts on the FSA's Committee on Toxicity(CoT) are expected to say that parents who want to minimise any risk of an adverse reaction should avoid these additives.

Some leading companies have already responded to mounting evidence of harm caused by chemical additives, particularly the vivid colours used to dress up products.

Smarties has dropped artificial colours with the result the blue variety has been axed. Sainsbury's recently announced a ban on artificial colours and flavours from 120 own label soft drinks. This follows similar moves by Marks & Spencer and the Co-op.

The research, carried out by a team from Southampton University, appears to confirm earlier studies suggesting additives can cause reactions, either individually or as a cocktail.

The colours, tested on groups of three-year-olds and eight-to-nine year olds, were tartrazine (E102), ponceau 4R (E124), sunset yellow (E110), carmoisine (E122), quinoline yellow (E104) and allura red AC (E129).

The team also looked at the effect of the preservative sodium benzoate (E211), which is commonly used in soft drinks. Precise details of the research findings are being kept secret until they can be peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal.

However, a source at Southampton University told the food industry's magazine, The Grocer, that their results are in line with earlier findings, published in 2004.

The original research, which took place on the Isle of Wight, involved giving fruit drinks to children aged three. In some weeks, these were laced with additives. Parents reported changed behaviour when the youngsters were given the additives.

However, the original findings were questioned because they relied on anecdotal reports from parents while the fact the children were so young made it difficult to measure their behaviour in a meaningful way. Because of these doubts, a second tranche of research was commissioned following advice from an expert committee, which included Professor Howard.

The Founder of the Hyperactive Children Support Group, Sally Bunday, said there is good evidence that artificial additives can have a harmful effect.

She said: "The consequences can be very serious for both children and adults who are sensitive to these artificial colours. "The reaction in children can be horrendous in terms of mood swings with crying, screaming, inability to sleep.

"There can also be physical reactions such as difficulty in breathing on skin rashes. For a young person there is also a risk of quite angry mood swings."

The founder of the organic brand Organix, Lizzie Vann, has been campaigning for a ban on all artificial additives from children's food.

"The use of artificial additives in children's foods means we are conducting a long-term experiment on our children's health," she said.

"If the Government is serious about improving children's nutrition the ban on artificial food additives must be a priority."

The Food & Drink Federation, which speaks for manufacturers, said the colours and chemicals used by the industry are proven to be safe. "The use of food additives is strictly regulated under European law," it said. "They must be approved as safe by the appropriate European scientific committee before they can be used...Consumers' intake of food additives is also closely monitored.

"A recent European Commission report on 'Dietary Food Additive Intake' indicated that consumption of all types of additives was within the strict safety limits set by the legislation. Particular attention was given to consumption by children."

The FSA and Southampton University refused to comment until the research has been officially published.

©2007 Associated Newspapers Ltd

Labels: , ,


RE: Most Important Bulletin Today!!!!! Iraq Vet truth- Repost!!!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Save Our Troops, WE Wont Forget 911 - WAR HORROR!
Date: May 11, 2007 2:37 PM

Truth be upon,
and pain be gone to:

A Local Revolution
May 11, 2007

Big AL
May 11, 2007

§ Lori §
Impeach GeOgre/ 9.11 Truth
Richie ;)~

4 ALL Vets...I love U! I support U! and THANK-U!!!

This is how I support my troops. PLEASE watch this and then visit the site below. It is time. NOW. Thank-U. Me, WE! Richie ;)~


After personally spending twenty months humping rice paddy's in Vietnam... I CAN RELATE TA THE FELLA!!!

I'm passing a hat around for donations to buy first class, "box seat" tickets at the Ford Theater for the entire Bush administration... This piece of work(Bush) deserves a reality check... Boots on the Ground!!! instead of being AWOL playing politics for his DADDY.

I gots ten grand for anyone who's served with ol Dubya In Alabama and can prove it

This will help U understand:

Labels: , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: *Galactic Consciousness*
Date: May 11, 2007 2:43 PM

From: TREYYA&trade
Date: May 11, 2007 11:52 AM

From: Pharmaceuticals KILL People & Animals!

Thanks, you can post this to your bulletin: Please do so by including the image and links, which you'd have to hit reply and copy and paste all the text below:

Evidence That Just Two Hours of Cell Phone Use Causes Brain Damage

Popular Science Mag Covers Cell Phone Link to Brain Damage

The dangers of cellular phones have been out for years now. This is just one of a list of hundreds of studies and articles compiled in an archive (

A Swedish study links mobile phones to brain damage.
Popular Science Magazine, February 2004

Researchers at Sweden's Lund University say these rat-brain cross-sections show first-ever evidence of brain damage from cellphone radiation.

While the controls (example, top) appear healthy, the test subjects (bottom), which were exposed to a 2-hour dose of cellphone radiation of varying intensities, are heavily spotted with proteins (dark patches) leaked from surrounding blood vessels, and show signs of significant neuronal damage.

Here is a powerful high-quality presentation you should see to learn more about cell phone radiation, electropollution, and the easy solution to protecting ourselves and our loved ones from these risks:

Watch this short flash video to easily understand the full health effects *and the solution* to cell phone radiation and all invisible electropollution:

Other studies or articles about cell phone risks:

Cell Phone Headsets "Emit More Radiation"
Yahoo.News (UK&Ireland) - April, 2000 (

Cell Phone Radiation May Cause Visual Damage
IsraCast Technology News, July 2005 (

REFLEX report shows that mobile phone radiation damages living cells
The REFLEX project , December, 2004 (

U.K. Gov. Bans Cell Phones in All Schools
The Sun, UK Press Sunday, November 2003 (

Cel phone convenience or 21st century plague?
Earthpulse Press, July 2004 (

Children’s Advocates Ask Congress to Investigate Marketing of Mobile Phones to Kids Progressive Newswire , July, 2005 (

Limit cell use: Health officer - Long-term phone risks
TORONTO STAR, July, 2005 (

You Don't Deserve Brain Cancer-You Deserve The Facts
Coastal Post , March, 2005 (

Studies have shown numerous biological effects from cell phone radiation
TORONTO STAR, July, 2005 (

Late Lessons from early warnings - Concerns about popular wireless devices
TORONTO STAR, July, 2005 (

Can we reduce cellphone risk for kids? -Other countries take precautions
TORONTO STAR, July, 2005 (

Even low-level radiation has cancer risk, scientists say

Is her cellphone safe? Some scientists trying to find the answer say they've been pressured to soften controversial findings
TORONTO STAR, July, 2005 (

What Cell Phones Can Do To Youngster's Brain In 2 Minutes
U.K. Sunday Mirror, London, April 1, 2004 (

RF radiation linked to Autism in children
Research Study

Robert C. Kane, Ph.D., February 2004 (

Mobile users are advised to keep their calls short
EveningTimes, London, April 30, 2004

WHO Invokes Precautionary Principle For High and Low-Frequency EMFs
Microwave News - March/April 2003 (

Headaches from Mobile Phones: French Scientist Offers Mechanism
Microwave News, November/October 2001 (

Maximum EMF Exposure Emerges As Strong Miscarriage Risk
Microwave News, May/June 2001(

1993 FDA Memo Data "Strongly Suggest" Microwaves Can Promote Cancer
Microwave News, May/June 2001(

Cell phone Industry Fails to Halt Suits
Health Issues

November 2005 (

Click here ( to find even more articles, and go to BioPro Technologies Website for Product infomation on how you can use new technologies with your cell phone and other electrical devices, to keep yourself safe from the harmful radiation. Go to and click on "products" to learn more.

click here for a list of articles about cell phone safety:

Labels: , ,


RE: US/UK news blackout from Iraq

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Nibiru
Date: May 11, 2007 3:10 PM

Slaughter of demonstrators by the US Armed Forces in Iraq

Anyway, here's a footage from Japan you probably haven't seen on the news. This is footage of US troops gunning down protesters in the streets, shown on Japanese television a few months ago, but not anywhere in the UK or America, so far as I'm aware:

Labels: , ,


RE: Michael Moore's Playing Us Again

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: disinformation
Date: May 11, 2007 3:28 PM

Does anyone remember what happened the last time Michael Moore took his soon-to-be-released movie to the Cannes Film Festival?

Just in case, let me refresh your memory. In curiously convenient timing, Moore let it be known during the festival that Disney's then-CEO Michael Eisner (he of the $550 million annual pay check) would not let specialty division Miramax release Fahrenheit 9/11, no matter how much Harvey Weinstein wanted to. The media was all over the story, giving the film the kind of exposure no studio's advertising budget could ever afford.

Whether Eisner and Disney were in on it we (or at least I) don't know, but it was a lesson you'd think that had been learned by all in Hollywood. Parenthetically, it brings to mind Fox suing Al Franken over the phrase "Fair and balanced," ensuring the otherwise doubtful success of Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. But that's another story.

Now, with Moore at Cannes to promote his new movie Sicko, comes the news that Moore is under investigation by the U.S. Treasury Department for taking ailing Sept. 11 rescue workers to Cuba for a segment in the film. Fox News gives the story a good run here and Moore makes the most of the controversy on his site here.

Convenient timing indeed. Incidentally, Michael and Harvey are together again: The Weinstein Company (Harvey & Bob Weinstein's post-Disney company) is releasing the movie in U.S. theaters on June 29, 2007.

Now I can't help thinking that maybe Disney gave Moore a helping hand in the timing of its refusal to release Fahrenheit 9/11. You can see why they might do it - to keep Harvey Weinstein happy and quiet might have been motivation enough, for instance - but why would the U.S. government want to help promote Sicko? Is there someone in the government who really wants health care reform. The mind boggles.

Suggestions welcome!

— Gary Baddeley, publisher

Comment on Disinfo blog

Labels: , ,



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ♥ Angel ♥ ™ ~For Truth~
Date: May 11, 2007 3:49 PM

Thanks: nierika

Friday, May 11, 2007

What the Republican Debate
Says About the Media
By Charles Delvalle

Dear Reader,

People who know me well know that I love politics. So being the dork that I am, I naturally watched the Republican and Democratic primary debates during the past few weeks.

But something about the Republican debate really got me steamed. And I thought I’d share it with you because it’s a perfect example of how the media can distort what’s really going on.

During the Republican debate, most people who tuned in wanted to see how well McCain, Giuliani, and Romney would do. These viewers are the political diehards. They know most of the candidates and just wanted to see them in action.

But there was a shocking standout. And viewers showed their love for him by calling him the winner in subsequent ABC and MSNBC online polls.

That person is Ron Paul.

For those who haven’t heard of Ron Paul, he’s considered a libertarian. He advocates a smaller government, lower taxes, abolishment of the IRS and the income tax (which he says is illegal since there is no law saying you have to pay them), he’s against unbacked currency (are you listening, Rusty McDougal?), and most importantly, opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

He’s the type of person advocates of a free market love, while representing everything politicians hate. Let me explain.

American politicians do well by listening to lobbyists. So if I was a politician and Google asked me to support a bill on net neutrality (which supports a network free from hardware and communication restrictions, thereby treating every bit of traffic that goes through the network the same), I would figure out whether I was for or against it. If I was for it, I’d introduce a net neutrality bill and Google would help me get re-elected.

Now, if you’re a politician who’s against government spending, lobbyists won’t cozy up to you. And this is where Ron Paul finds himself.

This is what pissed me off.

After the debate, articles on CNN and MSNBC declared either McCain or Romney the winner. How on God’s green earth did they come to that conclusion? It’s pretty clear that the MSNBC poll and ABC Poll showed that viewers considered Ron Paul the winner.

Perhaps they came to the conclusion that Ron Paul would never support their interests.

Now granted, I don’t know that Ron Paul could ever win the Republican nomination against social conservatives like Romney (who the right wing loves). But the blatant deceit these news organizations are practicing when it comes to American politics is downright disheartening.

If politics isn’t sacred ground, then what is? Certainly not your average employment or inflation report, which are commonly misrepresented.

Take, for example, a new reporter for a financial website reporting that core consumer inflation rose less than expected. Meanwhile, that inflation report showed inflation up 0.8 percent for the month, while the core was up only 0.1 percent. Sure the core was up less than expected, but considering everyone buys gas and food (which is excluded in the core), the inflation number he should be reporting is the higher number (which may have come in above expectations).

In this instance, the misrepresentation happened because the reporter really didn’t understand what he was looking at. Or maybe the market was bullish at the time, so he wrote a report to support the bull market.

Another reason why some of these numbers are twisted is simply due to laziness. Lets say you’re a reporter and you have 15 things on your plate that need to be done by tomorrow. One of those things is talking about the latest employment report. So when you report the employment numbers, you conveniently forget to mention that unemployment is conducted by a survey of about 60,000 people. In other words, it’s not that representative of the nation’s actual unemployment. Therefore, unemployment could be a few percentage points higher than reported.

Due to this reporter not taking the time to dig deep enough and discover what the employment report consists of, most investors will believe unemployment is lower than it actually is.

And these are the things you have to consider as an investor.

You have to understand that there will always be pork barrel spending in government bills. And in the long term, increased government spending, deficits, bailouts, and a declining dollar could sabotage your investments.

Most importantly, you should realize that when it comes to the media, there are no sacred cows (except political correctness). Just about every news report that hits the wire could essentially be manipulated or inaccurate.

So keep a wary eye on what you see and dig deep to discover the truth.

P.S. To let me know what you thought of today's article, send an e-mail to:

Labels: , ,


RE: May 15 Gas Embargo Bullshit

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Caroline Nguyen
Date: May 11, 2007 10:48 AM

This is so true. Forward this one, not that other stupid "elementary-school thinking" bullshit.

Ian sent me this information:

There's one more thing I'd like to add:

DO NOT VOTE for politicians who suck the dicks of oil companies. You guys know who these guys are, usually Republicans. But, not always, sometimes you can find a cool one; like how the other day I found a unicorn in the forest.



Not buying gasoline on May 15, 2007 isn't going to do shit to help us reduce longterm gas prices. The only way to really reduce gasoline prices is to REDUCE LONGTERM DEMAND.

1. Stop buying SUV's and start buying hybrids and EV's
Electric Vehicles:

2. Stop buying SUV's and fuel inefficient cars.

3. Stop buying SUV's and fuel inefficient cars.

4. Did we mention, stop buying SUV's and fuel inefficient cars?

5. If you have to drive then follow these tips:

1. Have your car tuned regularly. An engine tune-up can improve car fuel economy by an average of 1 mile per gallon.
2. Keep your tires properly inflated. Under-inflated tires can decrease fuel economy by up to 1 mile per gallon.
3. Slow down. The faster you drive, the more gasoline your car uses. Driving at 65 miles per hour rather than 55 miles per hour reduces fuel economy by about 2 miles per gallon.
4. Avoid jackrabbit starts. Abrupt starts require about twice as much gasoline as gradual starts.
5. Pace your driving. Unnecessary speedups, slowdowns and stops can decrease fuel economy by up to 2 miles per gallon.
6. Use your air conditioner sparingly. The use of air conditioning can reduce fuel economy by as much as 2 miles per gallon.
7. Avoid lengthy engine idling. Turn your engine off when you are delayed for more than a couple of minutes.
8. Plan your trips carefully. Combine short trips into one to do all your errands. Avoid traveling during rush hours if possible, to reduce fuel-consumption patterns such as starting and stopping and numerous idling periods. Consider joining a car pool.


Hybrids and Electric Vehicles are the only viable individual transportations we have in the world today. Forget about hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars, the only reason why those are being pushed is because the oil companies can make money from selling us hydrogen but the technology is inferior to EV's or Electric Vehicles.

Labels: , ,


RE: Actual Photos of The Sound Barrier

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Isis
Date: May 11, 2007 10:54 AM

Love & Light Too
Date: May 11, 2007 5:05 AM

Thanks: eve
Date: 11 May 2007, 10:21

Thanks !
Caduceus Mercurius
still waters run deep

This phenomenon only happens at the instant an
Aircraft breaks the sound barrier

And it literally appears like the aircraft goes through a wall.

I hope you find these pictures as fascinating as I did.

very cool.

Labels: , ,

eXTReMe Tracker