“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt”
Measure for Measure
Act I, Scene IV
Wednesday 18 December 2013
Tuesday 17 December 2013
The Anglo American Establishment
"The Rhodes Scholarships, established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes's seventh will, are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society was created by Rhodes and his principal trustee, Lord Milner, and continues to exist to this day. To be sure, this secret society is not a childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secret passwords. It does not need any of these, since its members know each other intimately. It probably has no oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does, however, exist and holds secret meetings, over which the senior member present presides.
At various times since 1891, these meetings have been presided over by Rhodes, Lord Milner, Lord Selborne, Sir Patrick Duncan, Field Marshal Jan Smuts, Lord Lothian, and Lord Brand. They have been held in all the British Dominions, starting in South Africa about 1903; in various places in London, chiefly 175 Piccadilly; at various colleges at Oxford, chiefly All Souls; and at many English country houses such as Tring Park, Blickling Hall, Cliveden, and others.
This society has been known at various times as Milner's Kindergarten, as the Round Table Group, as the Rhodes crowd, as The Times crowd, as the All Souls group, and as the Cliveden set. All of these terms are unsatisfactory, for one reason or another, and I have chosen to call it the Milner Group. Those persons who have used the other terms, or heard them used, have not generally been aware that all these various terms referred to the same Group.
It is not easy for an outsider to write the history of a secret group of this kind, but, since no insider is going to do it, an outsider must attempt it. It should be done, for this Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century. Indeed, the Group is of such significance that evidence of its existence is not hard to find, if one knows where to look. This evidence I have sought to point out without
overly burdening this volume with footnotes and bibliographical references. While such evidences of scholarship are kept at a minimum, I believe I have given the source of every fact which I mention. Some of these facts came to me from sources which I am not permitted to name, and I have mentioned them only where I can produce documentary evidence available to everyone.
Nevertheless, it would have been very difficult to write this book if I had not received a certain amount of assistance of a personal nature from persons close to the Group. For obvious reasons, I cannot reveal the names of such persons, so I have not made reference to any information derived from them unless it was information readily available from other sources.
Naturally, it is not possible for an outsider to write about a secret group without falling into errors. There are undoubtedly errors in what follows. I have tried to keep these at a minimum by keeping the interpretation at a minimum and allowing the facts to speak for themselves. This will serve as an excuse for the somewhat excessive use of quotations. I feel that there is no doubt at all about my general interpretation. I also feel that there are few misstatements of fact, except in one most difficult matter. This difficulty arises from the problem of knowing just who is and who is not a member of the Group. Since membership may not be a formal matter but based rather on frequent social association, and since the frequency of such association varies from time to time and from person to person, it is not always easy to say who is in the Group and who is not. I have tried to solve this difficulty by dividing the Group into two concentric circles: an inner core of intimate associates, who unquestionably knew that they were members of a group devoted to a common purpose; and an outer circle of a larger number, on whom the inner circle acted by personal persuasion, patronage distribution, and social pressure. It is probable that most members of the outer circle were not conscious that they were being used by a secret society. More likely they knew it, but, English fashion, felt it discreet to ask no questions. The ability of Englishmen of this class and background to leave the obvious unstated, except perhaps in obituaries, is puzzling and sometimes irritating to an outsider. In general, I have undoubtedly made mistakes in my lists of members, but the mistakes, such as they are, are to be found rather in my attribution of any particular person to the outer circle instead of the inner core, rather than in my connecting him to the Group at all. In general, I have attributed no one to the inner core for whom I do not have evidence, convincing to me, that he attended the secret meetings of the Group. As a result, several persons whom I place in the outer circle, such as Lord Halifax, should probably be placed in the inner core.
I should say a few words about my general attitude toward this subject. I approached the subject as a historian. This attitude I have kept. I have tried to describe or to analyze, not to praise or to condemn. I hope that in the book itself this attitude is maintained. Of course I have an attitude, and it would be only fair to state it here. In general, I agree with the goals and aims of the Milner Group. I feel that the British way of life and the British Commonwealth of Nations are among the great achievements of all history. I feel that the destruction of either of them would be a terrible disaster to mankind. I feel that the withdrawal of Ireland, of Burma, of India, or of Palestine from the Commonwealth is regrettable and attributable to the fact that the persons in control of these areas failed to absorb the British way of life while they were parts of the Commonwealth. I suppose, in the long view, my attitude would not be far different from that of the members of the Milner Group. But, agreeing with the Group on goals, I cannot agree with them on methods. To be sure, I realize that some of their methods were based on nothing but good intentions and high ideals—higher ideals than mine, perhaps. But their lack of perspective in critical moments, their failure to use intelligence and common sense, their tendency to fall back on standardized social reactions and verbal cliches in a crisis, their tendency to place power and influence into hands chosen by friendship rather than merit, their oblivion to the consequences of their actions, their ignorance of the point of view of persons in other countries or of persons in other classes in their own country—these things, it seems to me, have brought many of the things which they and I hold dear close to disaster. In this Group were persons like Esher, Grey, Milner, Hankey, and Zimmern, who must command the admiration and affection of all who know of them. On the other hand, in this Group were persons whose lives have been a disaster to our way of life. Unfortunately, in the long run, both in the Group and in the world, the influence of the latter kind has been stronger than the influence of the former.
This has been my personal attitude. Little of it, I hope, has penetrated to the pages which follow. I have been told that the story I relate here would be better left untold, since it would provide ammunition for the enemies of what I admire. I do not share this view. The last thing I should wish is that anything I write could be used by the Anglophobes and isolationists of the Chicago Tribune. But I feel that the truth has a right to be told, and, once told, can be an injury to no men of good will. Only by a knowledge of the errors of the past is it possible to correct the tactics of the future.
Carroll Quigley
1947
Dr. Sidney Gottlieb (of MK-Ultra), Mobutu and the The AIDS Crisis
“Bill Close … had come to Congo just before Independence as a missionary worker, though he was a trained physician. Somehow he became President Mobutu’s personal physician as well as director of the biggest hospital in the country.
“But this didn’t fully explain the extent of his power and influence in Zaire. He was a mysterious man, thoroughly likable, with an unmatched knowledge of Zaire and connections at all levels in society."
"By the early 1960s Gottlieb's techniques and potions were being fully deployed in the field. Well-known is Gottlieb's journey to the Congo, where his little black bag held an Agency-developed biotoxin scheduled for Patrice Lumumba's toothbrush. He also tried to manage Iraq's general Kassim with a handkerchief doctored with botulinum and there were the endless poisons directed at Fidel Castro, from the LSD the Agency wanted to spray in his radio booth to the poisonous fountain pen intended for Castro that was handed by a CIA man to Rolando Cubela on November 22, 1963."
"James Bond had Q, the scientific wizard who supplied 007 with dazzling gadgets to deploy against enemy agents. The Central Intelligence Agency had Sidney Gottlieb, a Bronx-born biochemist with a PhD from Caltech whose job as head of the agency's technical services division was to concoct the tools of espionage: disappearing inks, poison darts, toxic handkerchiefs.
Gottlieb once mailed a lethal handkerchief to an Iraqi colonel and personally ferried deadly bacteria to the Congo to kill Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. It wasn't his potions that eventually did in the two targets, but Gottlieb, once described by a colleague as the ultimate "good soldier," soldiered on."
(3) Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times (4th April, 1999)
"In Elizabethville, I do not think there was anyone there who believed that his death was as accident." — U.N. Representative Conor O’Brien on the death of U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold
"A lot has not been told." — Unnamed U.N. official, commenting on same
http://www.ctka.net/pr399-congo.html
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKgottlieb.htm
http://spikethenews.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/mobutu-sese-seko-glenn-close-and-aids.html
Fukushima: The Sailors of the USS Ronald Reagan
In 2011, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan assisted with rescue operations after the Fukushima earthquake and nuclear disaster.
At least 51 members of the crew of the USS Ronald Reagan have now developed radiation-related illnesses.
It is thought that the ship's desalinization systems took in radioactive water which the crew drank, cooked with and bathed-in.
Charles Bonner, attorney representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan said "They have testicular cancer, they have thyroid cancers, they have leukemias, they have rectal and gynecological bleeding, a host of problems that they did not have before ...
"People are going blind, pilots who had perfect eyesight but now have tumors on the brain. And it’s only been 3 years since they went in."
Many Gulf War Veterans have been afflicted with Leukemia, Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, or Hodgkin’s Disease.
aangirfan: USA'S SICK SAILORS: In 2011, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan assisted with rescue operations after the Fukushima earthquake and nuclear disaster. ...
Thursday, 12 December 2013 20:00
December 12, 2013 -- (TRN http://www.TurnerRadioNetwork.com ) -- Crew members in their mid-20's from the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan are coming down with all sorts of radiation-related illnesses after being deployed less than 3 years ago to assist with earthquake rescue operations off the coast of Japan in 2011. It looks as though the onboard desalinization systems that take salt out of seawater to make it drinkable, were taking-in radioactive water from the ocean for the crew to drink, cook with and bath-in, before anyone realized there was a massive radiation spill into the ocean.
Charles Bonner, attorney representing sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan said "the crew members were not only going to the rescue by jumping into the water and rescuing people out of the water, but they were drinking desalinated sea water, bathing in it, until finally the captain of the USS Ronald Reagan alarmed people that they were encountering high levels of radiation."
Bonner says that as a result of this exposure, the 51 sailors have come down with a host of medical problems, "They have testicular cancer, they have thyroid cancers, they have leukemias, they have rectal and gynecological bleeding, a host of problems that they did not have before ... people are going blind, pilots who had perfect eyesight but now have tumors on the brain. And it’s only been 3 years since they went in." Bonner pointed out that these service men and women are young people, ages 21, 22, 23 years old and no one in their family had ever suffered any of these kinds of illnesses before.
At present, 51 sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan are named as Plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) and Bonner says he anticipates adding twenty additional Sailors soon, bringing the total to 70 to 75 because "The Japanese government is in a major conspiracy with TEPCO to hide and conceal the true facts."
In an utterly shocking admission at a meeting of the Japan Press Club on December 12, 2013, the former Prime Minister of Japan, Naoto Kan, who was in-office when the Fukushima disaster took place, told assembled journalists "[People think it was March 12th but] the first meltdown occurred 5 hours after the earthquake." This means that the government of Japan KNEW there was horrific radiation being released, but did not tell the U.S. Navy which had deployed the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan to assist with rescue efforts. Our story covering this new aspect of the Fukushima incident is available HERE.
According to "Stars and Stripes" one Plaintiff in the lawsuit is Petty Officer 3rd Class Daniel Hair. When the earthquake struck, Hair and his Reagan shipmates were en route to Korea. They immediately turned around and steamed to the affected area. “There were people in distress,” he said. “This is what we signed up for.”
The Reagan passed through debris as far as the eye could see: wood, refrigerators, car tires, roofs of houses with people riding on them. Hair was told they were five to 10 miles off the coast from Fukushima, which had been damaged by a massive tsunami spawned by the quake.
Sailors were drinking desalinated seawater and bathing in it until the ship’s leadership came over the public address system and told them to stop because it was contaminated, Hair said. They were told the ventilation system was contaminated, and he claims he was pressured into signing a form that said he had been given an iodine pill even though none had been provided. As a low-ranking sailor, he believed he had no choice.
The Navy has acknowledged that the Reagan passed through a plume of radiation but declined to comment on the details in Hair’s story.
Shortly after the disaster, Senior Chief Mike Sebourn was sent from his home base, Naval Air Facility Atsugi, to Misawa Air Base, 200 miles from the faltering power plant. As a designated radiation decontamination officer, he dealt with aircraft and personnel that had flown into the area.
Sebourn, with only two days of training, was tasked with testing seven points on an aircraft’s skin for radiation. He and others crawled all over the crafts for months, he said, with only gloves for protection. At one point, he said, they took the radiator out of one aircraft and tested it. The radiation was four times greater than what should have required them to wear a suit and respirator, he said.
The level of radiation “was incredibly dangerous,” Sebourn said. “Navy aviation had never dealt with radiation before. Nobody knew what to do. Nobody knew what was safe. It was a nightmare.”
Sebourn said he suffered nose bleeds, headaches and nausea in the immediate aftermath — symptoms consistent with radiation poisoning. Months later, he felt weak in his right arm; excruciating pain followed. He said the command fitness leader in charge of physical training at Atsugi watched as his arm atrophied to about half its size.
“I have issues that can’t be explained,” Sebourn said. “It just seems like I am deteriorating.”
Sebourn said he went to doctors more than a dozen times, but no one knew what had caused the former personal trainer to lose 70 percent of the strength in the right side of his body. He retired after 17 years in Japan.
Sebourn is alarmed that the word “radiation” doesn’t appear anywhere in his service record, even though that was his job and he was exposed to it. He believed troops exposed would be red-flagged in their service records and be tracked for medical problems.
According to "The Huffington Post" another Plaintiff in the lawsuit is former Navy Quartermaster Maurice Enis.
Enis says it was more than a month after arriving off the coast of Japan -- and circling at distances of one to 10 miles from the crippled reactors -- when sailors aboard the carrier got word that a nuclear plant had been affected. "Even then, it was rumors," he said. And it wasn't until the USS Ronald Reagan had left Japan and sailors were scrubbing down the ship that they were offered radiation protection. Enis said the enlisted sailors were never offered any iodine. He said he later learned the "higher ups" -- officers and pilots -- had received the tablets to protect their thyroids from radiation damage.
"They had us sign off that we were medically fine, had no sickness, and that we couldn't sue the U.S. government," Enis told The Huffington Post, recalling widespread anger among the sailors who saw it as "B.S." but who also felt they had little choice.
VIDEOS FROM USS RONALD REAGAN
The first video below is when the Captain tells the crew they have moved the ship to fresher water and radiation is now down to acceptable levels, so they can begin using the water again! The second is what the Captain told the crew when the ship WAS HEADING BACK INTO the radiation!
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Despite the facts above, the mass-media in the U.S. has said nothing about this story. One more example of how the Turner Radio Network "provides facts the mass-media won't.")
RELATED STORIES:
http://www.stripes.com/in-growing-lawsuit-servicemembers-fault-tepco-for-radiation-related-illnesses-1.230512
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/11/fukushima-navy-health-problems_n_2855529.html
Sourcing for this story came partially from "The Nuclear HotSeat #129" www.NuclearHotSeat.com
Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination The FBI’s War on Rock Stars By Salvador Astucia Chapter 1: The Crime Scene
| Rethinking John Lennon’s Assassination The FBI’s War on Rock Stars By Salvador Astucia |
PART I: LENNON’S MURDER Chapter 1: The Crime Scene | ||
| The Dakota John Lennon was shot and killed on December 8, 1980, at about 10:50 pm, as he and his wife Yoko Ono attempted to enter their apartment at the Dakota building on West 72nd Street in Manhattan across from Central Park West. Lennon and Ono were returning from a record plant when the shooting occurred. Ironically, Lennon had autographed a copy of his most recent album (Double Fantasy) for the accused assailant as Lennon and Ono left for the record plant at around 5:00 pm that evening. In my research of the Lennon case, I quickly realized that details about the crime scene are sketchy at best. Clear unobstructed photographs of the Dakota's entrance are simply unavailable to the public. To remedy the situation, I traveled to Manhattan recently and personally photographed about 35 pictures of the Dakota with emphasis on the entrance, the area where Lennon was shot. I also obtained older photos of the Dakota from Roman Polanski's renowned 1968 movie, Rosemary's Baby, which was filmed at the Dakota. The information and crime scene photographs I obtained reveals quite a bit of new information about the murder. The Dakota is an upscale older apartment/condominium complex with an entrance on West 72nd Street. The entrance, shown in Figure 1, is two stories high with a fancy archway overhead. Architecturally, the Dakota is a set of buildings covering an entire block, as shown in aerial photograph labeled Figure 2. | ||
Figure 1: Entrance of the Dakota from W. 72ndStreet | |||
 | |||
| Figure 2: Aerial view of the Dakota | |||
The elegant building complex has two security levels: a guard booth at the entrance (left), and a main lobby about 25-to-30 feet inside the front entrance (right). A doorman is stationed at the guard booth and keeps watch over the entrance. A desk clerk is stationed at the main lobby. Someone is on duty at both positions 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A maintenance man (concierge) is frequently on duty as well, but it is unclear if that position is filled 24-by-7 like the others. The maintenance man is apparently stationed at a concierge stand in the main lobby, next to the front desk. I observed such a person assist the doorman unload luggage from an SUV temporarily parked in the entryway. The maintenance man then carried the luggage through a door which apparently leads to a service elevator. A maintenance man (aka, elevator operator; aka, handyman) was reportedly on duty the night Lennon was killed. In fact, Lennon reportedly collapsed by the concierge stand after being shot. There are seven critical locations in the entrance area: (1) the arched entrance; this is where Chapman reportedly stood when the shots were fired. (2) the courtyard gates; (3) the "entryway" which provides passage from the entrance to the courtyard gates, a distance of about 47 feet from the front entrance to the courtyard; (4) the doorman's booth (aka, the guard booth) on the outside of the entrance to the left; (5) a lobby on the right (not shown in picture) where Lennon collapsed after being shot; six stairs lead to the lobby; (6) a service elevator on the left, (not shown in picture); (7) a door on the left (not shown) which leads to the service elevator. NYPD Police Report Appendix D contains the official NYPD Police Report of John Lennon's murder, dated December 9, 1980. Surprisingly, I had no trouble obtaining it. I simply mailed a certified letter to the NYPD requesting the report and within a month a copy was in my possession. Unfortunately, the report's astonishing lack of detail was disappointing to say the least. There is no precise description of the crime itself, no narrative of where Lennon was standing when he was shot, no explanation of where Chapman was standing when he fired, no sketches, no names of witnesses, nothing of any consequence. Had Chapman not pled guilty months later, the prosecutors would have had little evidence to build a case against him. At a minimum, one would think the police report would contain names of witnesses. The report barely indicates that a crime occurred at all. Here is a summary of the rudimentary information found in the report:
The following are excerpts from the report which describe the crime in extremely general terms.
That is essentially all the information of substance provided in the NYPD police report. (see Appendix D) The rest is bureaucratic paperwork, a whitewash. That's putting it mildly. NYC Medical Examiner refuses to release autopsy report On July 1, 2003, I sent a letter to the New York City Medical Examiner's Office requesting a copy of John Lennon's autopsy report. I was referred to the Medical Examiner's Office by the NYPD after making a similar request from them. Subsequently, I received a letter, dated July 18, 2003, from Ellen Borakove, Director of Public Affairs at the Office of Chief Medical Examiner, Charles S. Hirsch, MD. The following is the contents of Ms. Borakove's letter:
In other words, Ms. Borakove is advising me to contact Yoko Ono and get permission to see John's autopsy report, something Borakove obviously knows will lead nowhere. Being the widow of John Lennon, Yoko is a constantly inundated with letters and requests from all sorts of people and will likely not respond to a stranger, particularly someone asking questions about a painful, traumatic experience she would prefer to forget. Why is John Lennon's autopsy report being suppressed? Since when did autopsy reports become closed for public inspection? I do not doubt the truthfulness of Ms. Borakove's statement, but when did this sort of information become off limits to the public? It seems odd that the autopsy report of a celebrity living in America--or anyone living in America, for that matter--would be denied to any American citizen who requests it. Who is being protected? Certainly not the deceased. Besides being denied access to the autopsy report, I sent three additional requests to Lieutenant Michael Pascucci, at the NYPD Legal Bureau, for other items related to the crime. All three requests were refused. The requested items were as follows: (a) the personal notes of Officer Peter Cullen, (b) the personal notes of Officer Stephen Spiro, and (c) crime scene photographs. As previously stated, Cullen and Spiro were the arresting officers of murder suspect Mark David Chapman. The reason given by Lieutenant Pascucci for refusing to release copies of Cullen's and Spiro's personal notes was "unwarranted invasion of privacy." It's interesting that excerpts from Officer Spiro's personal notes were published in British author Fenton Bresler's book, Who Killed John Lennon? I'm not criticizing the British, but why does a British author have free access to American police records which are denied to an American author? Copies of all referenced letters between Ellen Borakove, Lieutenant Michael Pascucci, and myself are shown in Exhibits M through T (in Appendix E). Chapman’s Gun Fenton Bresler described in great detail—in his book, Who Killed John Lennon? (1989)—how Chapman purchased—on October 27, 1980—a .38 Special revolver from J&S Enterprises Ltd, a gun shop in midtown Honolulu. Bresler even provided the weapon’s serial number, 577570, and implied that the stated weapon was used by Chapman to murder John Lennon about six weeks later on December 8, 1980.15 The NYPD’s police report indicates that a ".38 cal snub nose" was the weapon found at the crime scene; however, the serial number is not shown in the report. Consequently, it is unclear if the serial number of the .38 revolver purchased by Chapman on October 27, 1980 matches the weapon found by the NYPD at the crime scene on December 8, 1980. Tracing the murder weapon is convoluted because Chapman made two trips to New York City: one from October 29, 1980 through November 10, 1980; another on December 6, 1980. On the first trip, there is little doubt that Chapman carried the .38 revolver, serial # 577570, as Bresler described. In fact, Bresler gave a detailed account of how Chapman brought the gun with him to NYC on October 29th but forgot to bring bullets, and subsequently flew to Atlanta to get hollow-point bullets from his cop friend, Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott). The reason for the Atlanta trip was because NYC forbade the purchase of ammunition by persons not living in the state of New York. Although Bresler presents several interesting facts, his discussion about the murder weapon itself is confusing. For example, Bresler gives Dana Reeves a pseudonym, Gene Scott. This is an unnecessary layer of confusion since Reeves’s identity was revealed by Jim Gaines in an article, "Descent Into Madness," published in People Magazineon June 22, 1981. I have analyzed Chapters 13 and 14 of Bresler’s book quite a bit and he covers so much ground that is impossible to determine if the gun Chapman purchased on October 27, 1980 is the same one found by the NYPD at the crime scene on December 8, 1980. Bresler even introduces the possibility that Chapman threw the gun and the bullets into the ocean after returning to Honolulu from his first trip to New York. I will address that later. For now, let’s focus on matching the serial number of the purchased gun to the weapon found at the crime scene. On August 26, 2003, I phoned the NYPD switchboard (646-610-5000, listed on website) and asked to speak with Lieutenant Michael Pascucci of the Legal Bureau. I do not know Mr. Pascucci personally, but I have exchanged several letters with him regarding requests for various documents related to the Lennon case, including the police report. Mr. Pascucci was out to lunch when I phoned, but I spoke with a colleague and asked if I could obtain the serial number of the weapon found at the crime scene. I specifically asked if it would be possible to get the serial number quickly without going through a lot of red tape. Unfortunately, my fast-track request was denied, but I was advised to submit an official request with the FOIL Unit [Freedom of Information Legal Unit]. I am continuing my research in this area and will publish the serial number of the weapon found at the crime scene when it is in my possession; however, it could time for the NYPD to respond, should they choose to release the serial number at all. In the meantime, I shall proceed without it. There is a strong possibility that the .38 revolver Chapman purchased on October 27, 1980 is NOT the same .38 revolver found at the crime scene on December 8, 1980. There is also a possibility that if the serial numbers match, that the gun was brought to the crime scene by someone other than Chapman. In both scenarios, I suspect the gun was planted, that Chapman was unarmed on the night of the murder, and the notion that he was carrying a gun was a hypnotic suggestion planted in his mind. Think about it. If a second gunman killed Lennon, the planners wouldn’t want Chapman to carry a loaded weapon to the crime scene. He might start firing wildly, possibly shooting the second gunman or doorman Jose Perdomo. Chapman’s role was to be the patsy, not the shooter. A smarter approach would be to send Chapman to NYC on a prior visit carrying the murder weapon, and plant a hypnotic obsession in his mind to kill Lennon. The planners had no intention of killing Lennon during Chapman’s first visit to New York. The objective was to create a real image in Chapman’s mind that he carried a gun to NYC while he struggled to resist an obsession to murder Lennon. Chapman admitting fighting the obsession and ultimately won during the first visit and did not harm Lennon. On the second trip to NYC, Chapman would be unarmed, but through the use of hypnosis/mind control, Chapman would confuse the second trip to NYC with the first. Hence, he would confuse his real memory of being armed during his first trip to NYC with his second trip where he was unarmed. Let’s review the stated scenario again because it’s complicated. During Chapman’s first trip to NYC from Honolulu—from October 29, 1980 through November 10, 1980—he brought with him a gun similar to the murder weapon found at the crime scene on December 8, 1980, but he forgot to bring bullets. Because of NYC’s strict gun control laws, Chapman flew to Atlanta—from November 7 through November 9, 1980—where he obtained bullets from his cop friend, Dana Reeves. Keep in mind, this all occurred during Chapman’s first trip to NYC which ended on November 10, 1980 when Chapman returned to Honolulu. But Lennon wasn’t killed until a month later, two days after Chapman arrived in NYC a second time on December 6, 1980. The question is this: Did Chapman bring with him to NYC on December 6, 1980 the same gun he brought with him on October 29, 1980, the same gun he purchased from J&S Enterprises in Honolulu on October 27, 1980? (serial # 577570) In addition, did Chapman bring with him to NYC on December 6, 1980 the same hollow-point bullets he obtained from Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott) in Atlanta during his trip there from November 7 through November 9, 1980? Bresler does not make this clear at all. Instead he confuses things by introducing several side issues which are interesting but divert attention from the murder weapon found at the crime scene. Bresler jumps back and forth between Chapman’s first and second trips, getting into all sorts of minutia, and completely loses track of the alleged murder weapon. Again, did Chapman carry the same gun on both trips? Did he carry the same bullets on the second trip that he acquired from Dana Reeves on the first trip? Adding to the confusion, Bresler introduces a major anomaly by citing the following excerpt from Albert Goldman’s book, The Lives of John Lennon:
Run that by me again? Chapman threw the gun and the bullets in the ocean? That is probably the most profound bit of information in Bresler’s entire book, yet Bresler leaves it unchallenged. Remember, Bresler is quoting Goldman. It was Goldman who asserted that Chapman threw the .38 revolver—serial number 577570—in the ocean, along with the hollow-point bullets acquired from Dana Reeves (aka, Gene Scott). Did this event happen or not? Bresler makes no attempt to directly refute Goldman’s bombshell assertion. Instead, Bresler criticizes Goldman for making several mistakes of lesser magnitude. True, many of Goldman’s conclusions about Lennon’s personal life—and other facts—are dubious. But since Bresler was criticizing Goldman anyway, he should have challenged Goldman’s revelation that Chapman threw the original gun and bullets into the ocean. How could Bresler let an assertion of that magnitude go unchallenged? Yet that is precisely what he did. Bresler then fixated on the logistics of Chapman’s second trip to NYC. Most accounts claim Chapman flew from Honolulu to NYC on December 6, 1980, stopping in Chicago only to change planes. Bresler claims, however, that Chapman left Honolulu around December 2nd, visited his grandmother in Chicago for three days, then took a flight from Chicago to NYC on December 6, 1980. I have no reason to challenge Bresler’s version of events, but it seems to be somewhat trivial. Bresler acts as though this a major discovery. There’s nothing wrong with clarifying Chapman’s itinerary, but Bresler devoted several pages to it while ignoring Goldman’s more important assertion that Chapman threw his gun and bullets in the ocean while in Honolulu. It would seem that Bresler could easily resolve the anomaly by interviewing Chapman directly. Bresler gets around this by claiming he requested an interview with Chapman but Chapman refused. Obviously that’s an excellent excuse; however, Bresler may have maneuvered events to discourage Chapman from granting him an interview. Anyone who has read Bresler’s book knows that Chapman is depicted with great empathy, but Bresler also interjects a recurring theme that Chapman has repressed homosexual tendencies. The gay theme is completely gratuitous as far as I can determine. Chapman’s sexual preference has no bearing on his guilt of innocence; it’s just something Bresler interjected for no apparent reason. Think about it. If you were Chapman, would you grant an interview to someone who called you queer? Chapman has never acknowledged being gay or bisexual. He led a heterosexual life. I don’t mean to seem anti-gay, but in reality, most straight men are extremely offended when someone suggests—in a serious manner—that they are gay. By implying Chapman was gay, Bresler virtually guaranteed Chapman would deny his request for an interview, thereby leaving critical issues unresolved, like whether Chapman threw his gun and bullets in the ocean as Goldman claims. To summarize events related to the alleged murder weapon, here is a timeline of Chapman’s purchase of the .38 revolver in Honolulu and his subsequent trips to NYC:
|
| ||||
|
|
| ENDNOTES |
| 15 | Fenton Bresler, Who Killed John Lennon? (1989), p 174 |
| 16 | ibid, p 193 |
| 17 | ibid, p 174 |
| 18 | ibid, p 175 |
| 19 | ibid, pp 177-180 |
| 20 | ibid, p 184 |
| 21 | ibid, pp 186-187 |
| 22 | ibid, p 193 |
New York Time, September 4th 2001: "U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits" by Judith Miller
Over the past several years, the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons that, some officials say, tests the limits of the global treaty banning such weapons.
The 1972 treaty forbids nations from developing or acquiring weapons that spread disease, but it allows work on vaccines and other protective measures. Government officials said the secret research, which mimicked the major steps a state or terrorist would take to create a biological arsenal, was aimed at better understanding the threat.
The projects, which have not been previously disclosed, were begun under President Clinton and have been embraced by the Bush administration, which intends to expand them.
Earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax, a deadly disease ideal for germ warfare.
The experiment has been devised to assess whether the vaccine now being given to millions of American soldiers is effective against such a superbug, which was first created by Russian scientists. A Bush administration official said the National Security Council is expected to give the final go-ahead later this month.
Two other projects completed during the Clinton administration focused on the mechanics of making germ weapons.
In a program code-named Clear Vision, the Central Intelligence Agency built and tested a model of a Soviet-designed germ bomb that agency officials feared was being sold on the international market. The C.I.A. device lacked a fuse and other parts that would make it a working bomb, intelligence officials said.
At about the same time, Pentagon experts assembled a germ factory in the Nevada desert from commercially available materials. Pentagon officials said the project demonstrated the ease with which a terrorist or rogue nation could build a plant that could produce pounds of the deadly germs.
Both the mock bomb and the factory were tested with simulants -- benign substances with characteristics similar to the germs used in weapons, officials said.
A senior Bush administration official said all the projects were ''fully consistent'' with the treaty banning biological weapons and were needed to protect Americans against a growing danger. ''This administration will pursue defenses against the full spectrum of biological threats,'' the official said.
The treaty, another administration official said, allows the United States to conduct research on both microbes and germ munitions for ''protective or defensive purposes.''
Some Clinton administration officials worried, however, that the project violated the pact. And others expressed concern that the experiments, if disclosed, might be misunderstood as a clandestine effort to resume work on a class of weapons that President Nixon had relinquished in 1969.
Simultaneous experiments involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents and the developoment of more potent anthrax, these officials said, would draw vociferous protests from Washington if conducted by a country the United States viewed as suspect.
Administration officials said the need to keep such projects secret was a significant reason behind President Bush's recent rejection of a draft agreement to strengthen the germ-weapons treaty, which has been signed by 143 nations.
The draft would require those countries to disclose where they are conducting defensive research involving gene-splicing or germs likely to be used in weapons. The sites would then be subject to international inspections.
Many national security officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations opposed the draft, arguing that it would give potential adversaries a road map to what the United States considers its most serious vulnerabilities.
Among the facilities likely to be open to inspection under the draft agreement would be the West Jefferson, Ohio, laboratory of the Battelle Memorial Institute, a military contractor that has been selected to create the genetically altered anthrax.
Several officials who served in senior posts in the Clinton administration acknowledged that the secretive efforts were so poorly coordinated that even the White House was unaware of their full scope.
The Pentagon's project to build a germ factory was not reported to the White House, they said. President Clinton, who developed an intense interest in germ weapons, was never briefed on the programs under way or contemplated, the officials said.
A former senior official in the Clinton White House conceded that in retrospect, someone should have been responsible for reviewing the projects to ensure that they were not only effective in defending the United States, but consistent with the nation's arms-control pledges.
The C.I.A.'s tests on the bomb model touched off a dispute among government experts after the tests were concluded in 2000, with some officials arguing that they violated the germ treaty's prohibition against developing weapons.
Intelligence officials said lawyers at the agency and the White House concluded that the work was defensive, and therefore allowed. But even officials who supported the effort acknowledged that it brought the United States closer to what was forbidden.
''It was pressing how far you go before you do something illegal or immoral,'' recalled one senior official who was briefed on the program.
Public disclosure of the research is likely to complicate the position of the United States, which has long been in the forefront of efforts to enforce the ban on germ weapons.
The Bush administration's willingness to abandon the 1972 Antiballistic Missile treaty has already drawn criticism around the world. And the administration's stance on the draft agreement for the germ treaty has put Washington at odds with many of its allies, including Japan and Britain.
The Original Treaty
During the cold war, both the United States and the Soviet Union produced vast quantities of germ weapons, enough to kill everyone on earth.
Eager to halt the spread of what many called the poor man's atom bomb, the United States unilaterally gave up germ arms and helped lead the global campaign to abolish them. By 1975, most of the world's nations had signed the convention.
In doing so, they agreed not to develop, produce, acquire or stockpile quantities or types of germs that had no ''prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes.'' They also pledged not to develop or obtain weapons or other equipment ''designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.''
There were at least two significant loopholes: The pact did not define ''defensive'' research or say what studies might be prohibited, if any. And it provided no means of catching cheaters.
In the following decades, several countries did cheat, some on a huge scale. The Soviet Union built entire cities devoted to developing germ weapons, employing tens of thousands of people and turning anthrax, smallpox and bubonic plague into weapons of war. In the late 1980's, Iraq began a crash program to produce its own germ arsenal.
Both countries insisted that their programs were for defensive purposes.
American intelligence officials had suspected that Baghdad and Moscow were clandestinely producing germ weapons. But the full picture of their efforts did not become clear until the 1990's, after several Iraqi and Soviet officials defected.
Fears about the spread of biological weapons were deepened by the rise of terrorism against Americans, the great strides in genetic engineering and the collapse of the Soviet Union, which left thousands of scientists skilled in biological warfare unemployed, penniless and vulnerable to recruitment.
The threat disclosed a quandary: While the United States spent billions of dollars a year to assess enemy military forces and to defend against bullets, tanks, bombs and jet fighters, it knew relatively little about the working of exotic arms it had relinquished long ago.
Designing a Delivery System
In the mid-1990's, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies stepped up their search for information about other nations' biological research programs, focusing on the former Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq and Libya, among others. Much of the initial emphasis was on the germs that enemies might use in an attack, officials said.
But in 1997, the agency embarked on Clear Vision, which focused on weapons systems that would deliver the germs.
Intelligence officials said the project was led by Gene Johnson, a senior C.I.A. scientist who had long worked with some of the world's deadliest viruses. Dr. Johnson was eager to understand the damage that Soviet miniature bombs -- bomblets, in military parlance -- might inflict.
The agency asked its spies to find or buy a Soviet bomblet, which releases germs in a fine mist. That search proved unsuccessful, and the agency approved a proposal to build a replica and study how well it could disperse its lethal cargo.
The agency's lawyers concluded that such a project was permitted by the treaty because the intent was defensive. Intelligence officials said the C.I.A. had reports that at least one nation was trying to buy the Soviet-made bomblets.
A model was constructed and the agency conducted two sets of tests at Battelle, the military contractor. The experiments measured dissemination characteristics and how the model performed under different atmospheric conditions, intelligence officials said. They emphasized that the device was a ''portion'' of a bomb that could not have been used as a weapon.
The experiments caused concern at the White House, which learned about the project after it was under way. Some aides to President Clinton worried that the benefits did not justify the risks. But a White House lawyer led a joint assessment by several departments that concluded that the program did not violate the treaty, and it went ahead.
The questions were debated anew after the project was completed, this time without consensus. A State Department official argued for a strict reading of the treaty: the ban on acquiring or developing ''weapons'' barred states from building even a partial model of a germ bomb, no matter what the rationale.
''A bomb is a bomb is a bomb,'' another official said at the time.
The C.I.A. continued to insist that it had the legal authority to conduct such tests and, intelligence officials said, the agency was prepared to reopen the fight over how to interpret the treaty. But even so, the agency ended the Clear Vision project in the last year of the Clinton administration, intelligence officials said.
Bill Harlow, the C.I.A. spokesman, acknowledged that the agency had conducted ''laboratory or experimental'' work to assess the intelligence it had gathered about biological warfare.
''Everything we have done in this respect was entirely appropriate, necessary, consistent with U.S. treaty obligations and was briefed to the National Security Council staff and appropriate Congressional oversight committees,'' Mr. Harlow said.
Breeding More Potent Anthrax
In the 1990's, government officials also grew increasingly worried about the possibility that scientists could use the widely available techniques of gene-splicing to create even more deadly weapons.
Those concerns deepened in 1995, when Russian scientists disclosed at a scientific conference in Britain that they had implanted genes from Bacillus cereus, an organism that causes food poisoning, into the anthrax microbe.
The scientists said later that the experiments were peaceful; the two microbes can be found side-by-side in nature and, the Russians said, they wanted to see what happened if they cross-bred.
A published account of the experiment, which appeared in a scientific journal in late 1997, alarmed the Pentagon, which had just decided to require that American soldiers be vaccinated against anthrax. According to the article, the new strain was resistant to Russia's anthrax vaccine, at least in hamsters.
American officials tried to obtain a sample from Russia through a scientific exchange program to see whether the Russians had really created such a hybrid. The Americans also wanted to test whether the microbe could defeat the American vaccine, which is different from that used by Russia.
Despite repeated promises, the bacteria were never provided.
Eventually the C.I.A. drew up plans to replicate the strain, but intelligence officials said the agency hesitated because there was no specific report that an adversary was attempting to turn the superbug into a weapon.
This year, officials said, the project was taken over by the Pentagon's intelligence arm, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Pentagon lawyers reviewed the proposal and said it complied with the treaty. Officials said the research would be part of Project Jefferson, yet another government effort to track the dangers posed by germ weapons.
A spokesman for Defense Intelligence, Lt. Cmdr. James Brooks, declined comment. Asked about the precautions at Battelle, which is to create the enhanced anthrax, Commander Brooks said security was ''entirely suitable for all work already conducted and planned for Project Jefferson.''
The Question of Secrecy
While several officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations called this and other research long overdue, they expressed concern about the lack of a central system for vetting such proposals.
And a former American diplomat questioned the wisdom of keeping them secret.
James F. Leonard, head of the delegation that negotiated the germ treaty, said research on microbes or munitions could be justified, depending on the specifics.
But he said such experiments should be done openly, exposed to the scrutiny of scientists and the public. Public disclosure, he said, is important evidence that the United States is proceeding with a ''clean heart.''
''It's very important to be open,'' he said. ''If we're not open, who's going to be open?''
Mr. Leonard said the fine distinctions drawn by government lawyers were frequently ignored when a secret program was exposed. Then, he said, others offer the harshest possible interpretations -- a ''vulgarization of what has been done.''
But he concluded that the secret germ research, as described to him, was ''foolish, but not illegal.''
The authors have reported on biological weapons for The New York Times and based this article on material gathered for their book, ''Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War,'' which is being published this month by Simon & Schuster Inc.
Anthrax War - Project Coast, Dr. David Kelly and the Ethnic Weapons Program from Spike EP on Vimeo.
The Assassination of Dr. David Kelly of MI6 and Porton Down has deep roots
http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2007/10/dr-david-kelly-and-operation-mason.html
http://aangirfan.blogspot.de/2011/01/dr-david-kelly-missing-fingerprints.html
Dr David Kelly knew too much and died rather mysteriously.
Police have now admitted that the following objects found with his body did not have fingerprints on them:
His mobile phone
A watch
The knife he allegedly used to slash his wrist
The packs of pills he is said to have overdosed on
A water bottle
A secret file of evidence was submitted to the Hutton inquiry by Thames Valley Police.
The contents remain secret.
But 'the cover is publicly available and reveals that the codename for the investigation was Operation Mason.'
This has given rise to 'rumours of a freemasonry angle'.
The start time of Operation Mason is given as 2.30pm on Thursday July 17.
That was at least half an hour BEFORE Dr Kelly set off from his home on his fatal walk. Click here for Part Two of Norman Baker's shocking investigation ... / The Truth Seeker - Was Dr. Kelly Murdered?
And, it is nearly ten hours before Dr Kelly's wife rang the police to sound the alert over her missing husband.
Sunday 15 December 2013
Neville Hodgkinson of the Sunday Times on the AIDS Crisis andNon-Existent HIV Test
In 2000, I attended the second of two hearings called by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa.
He set up an AIDS Advisory Panel after learning of problems and uncertainties in AIDS science.
For his trouble, Mbeki suffered intense criticism from the South African and indeed world media
At the International AIDS Conference in Durban, there were people with placards saying,
“One dissident, one bullet”.
It was as though we were traitors in a war.
But how can you fight a war when you don’t know who or what the enemy is?
There is irrefutable evidence, for example, that TB, a massive global killer, commonly causes those infected, and their contacts, to have raised blood levels of the antibodies that the HIV test detects.
But this has nothing to do with HIV.
"As part of my job as medical correspondent I was writing a lot about AIDS in the late 1980s, taking the conventional line about this great new danger that was facing us. When I came back to the Sunday Times from the Sunday Express in the early 1990s, I was struck by how predictions that had been made about this epidemic – that it would sweep through all sexually active populations – were not coming about, at least in Europe and America. I learned of a critique of the HIV theory mounted by scientists in the United States and wrote a two-page spread on it. It was the first time the critique had been reported in a national newspaper, and it brought fierce responses: everybody attacked the Sunday Times for being irresponsible, because it was thought that for the scientific community to show any differences of opinion on the causes of AIDS would damage the public health efforts. It was as though we were traitors in a war. But how can you fight a war when you don’t know who or what the enemy is?
I’ve come to believe that the medical and science professions lost their heads over this issue. Whilst it is understandable that people will behave differently in the face of a prospective crisis, making and never challenging assumptions about the cause of a new disease simply does not make for good science. I wrote a series of articles that critiqued the mainstream HIV theory. Nature, the bible of science journalism, along with other scientific bodies became more and more upset about these articles. At one point the magazine contemplated picketing the offices of the Sunday Times to try to stop us. It was really a very bitter episode.
There was a feeling amongst journalists writing about AIDS in the late 1980s of really doing something useful; not just entertaining or informing, but really making a difference to the world. In my view, that feeling, which I shared, can be dangerous for a journalist, as well as for scientists. It can cause you to lose your objectivity. You feel so much that you are doing the right thing it becomes very hard to see contradictory evidence.
Broadly, there are two critiques: the first is from the eminent molecular biologist, Peter Duesberg, who argued, from the late 1980s, that HIV was such a conventional retrovirus, with such minimal amounts active in HIV-positive people and even AIDS patients, that it could not possibly be doing the damage ascribed to it. There is also a group in Perth, Australia, who have an even deeper critique. These scientists say that the HIV test was never validated as demonstrating the presence of a new virus, because of the inability to purify the purported virus or locate it in AIDS patients. They argue that the antibodies that are taken to signify HIV are actually non-specific: rather than showing the presence of a deadly new virus, they indicate that the immune system has been activated in a particular way as a result of any one or more of a variety of circumstances and conditions. Their view is that promiscuous, unprotected anal sex with multiple partners, often accompanied by heavy drug use, is a principal cause of “HIV”-positivity and AIDS in the West, whereas the main cause of what has come to be called AIDS in poor countries is diseases linked to malnutrition. In both circumstances, the immune system becomes challenged in ways that lead to raised levels of the antibodies thought to mean HIV is present; but those antibodies can actually relate to a wide variety of conditions, including some that are harmless, such as pregnancy, and others that are often treatable, such as TB. So these are really very radical challenges to the worldwide popular beliefs about the causes and nature of AIDS.
In poor countries within Africa and the Indian subcontinent there are millions of premature deaths, and it is good that world attention is now focused on this tragedy. But the critics argue that AIDS workers, who have the best of intentions, have nevertheless focused on the wrong target. There is irrefutable evidence, for example, that TB, a massive global killer, commonly causes those infected, and their contacts, to have raised blood levels of the antibodies that the HIV test detects. But this has nothing to do with HIV.
You cannot tell simply on the basis of the antibody test whether or not HIV is present. This is acknowledged by the manufacturers of the tests, who put a suitable disclaimer in their product information leaflet. But people who test positive are not told of this non-specificity. Doctors believe they have other tests with which they can confirm a diagnosis of HIV infection, but in fact, none of these other tests is specific either. It is a real tragedy. I still write occasional articles about this:
but many people still think it is irresponsible to question “HIV” science.
So how did you cope with the bitterness that this issue generated?
I wouldn’t have been able to survive the two years of intense criticism whilst I was doing the questioning articles at the Sunday Times if I hadn’t been making progress on trying to take my ego out of the equation, through continual spiritual practice. So it has been a fantastic learning tool! I have had to check my motives constantly. The experience has taught me to be less and less reactive to abuse, in the process of searching for an objective perspective on these issues. If you are trying to prove a particular point of view in a personal way, it hurts when others condemn you. The more you manage to keep your feelings out of it, the more you are able to remain calm, and that enables you to keep going.
The story took me all over the world. I spent a week in a virologist’s laboratory in Germany, learning about molecular biology, so that I could understand how the original mistakes in HIV science came about. I travelled through Africa for several weeks; I went to interview the scientists in Australia. It was actually a great privilege to be with a newspaper like the Sunday Times that could afford to let me investigate and write about the critiques in such depth.
I left full-time journalism in 1994 to write the book, AIDS: The Failure of Contemporary Science (Fourth Estate, 1996), which was, disappointingly, widely ignored except in some fringe publications. I was a bit innocent. I think I expected – because it seemed so clear to me that the evidence was there that this was a huge mistake – that it would only be a matter of months before the truth came out. Surely doctors wouldn’t want to keep condemning people to death on the basis of this unvalidated diagnostic test? Why would people want to continue giving antiviral drugs, of high toxicity, when it wasn’t even clear what the target of the drugs was?
There are stories of hundreds of people, particularly in the United States, who have been diagnosed HIV positive yet who are mostly doing very well after learning of the flaws in the HIV theory and deciding not to take the drug approach. The organisation Alive & Well – AIDS Alternatives has done tremendous work in alerting those with an HIV diagnosis that this needn’t be a death sentence, and that they should make informed choices about the drugs. It is a sad aspect of modern medicine that doctors are often too ready to tell a patient that unless they agree to take drug treatment, they will die. The public have been led to understand cancer as a death sentence, although some of the cancer charities are beginning to try to change that idea. At least cancer is today a disease that can be talked about openly, but imagine the effect on a patient of an “HIV” diagnosis, given the stigma attached to the purported virus. It is said to be sexually-transmitted, and it’s also linked to drugs; and the diagnosis is considered so terrible that you need to be counselled if you test positive. Surely that only adds to the power of the hex, the belief that you are going to die? I wonder how many people have died simply as a result of being told they have HIV…
So has there been any discussion or debate on the mainstream view of HIV/AIDS?
Mainstream AIDS experts have not been willing to enter into discussion with the “dissident” scientists. They won’t appear on the same platform as these scientists, won’t allow them to publish in their journals, and won’t even debate with them. After he mounted his critique, Peter Duesberg was reduced from being a front-runner in his field to chair of his university’s annual picnic committee!
When my book was published an article headlined “Sunday Times Science Editor Awaits Flat Earth” came out in the Observer. It was written by a journalist who was purporting to review the book, but he admitted to me later that he had not read it. It linked my spiritual study with my “crazy” views on HIV/AIDS, but misrepresented both in order to ridicule both me and the rival Sunday Times. Althoughthe newspaper published an apology and correction, it left quite a scar for a while.
So the discussion on these issues has mostly been polemics. However, after the publication of my book, a group of AIDS workers at the Chelsea & Westminster hospital allowed me to come and address them. Although it didn’t change anything, they were courteous, and also I think genuinely surprised that I wasn’t some kind of monster, a dreadful hack just out for a sensational story, given the nature of the prior publicity. It was generous of them to take that risk with me, and they saw that I was at least serious about the critique.
In 2000, I attended the second of two hearings called by President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa. He set up an AIDS Advisory Panel after learning of problems and uncertainties in AIDS science. For his trouble, Mbeki suffered intense criticism from the South African and indeed world media; it seemed to them to be sacrilege that he should be questioning the HIV theory, in a country where millions are thought to be infected. It is extraordinary how angry some people were. At the International AIDS Conference in Durban, there were people with placards saying, “One dissident, one bullet”.
Yet the high rates of disease and death seen among rural black communities in South Africa are probably a consequence of 60 years of apartheid, in which black families were broken up through policies of forced relocation, and deprived of both education and health care. It is easier for some people to attribute the current high death rates to HIV than to accept that these deaths result from the poverty and violence that were apartheid’s legacies."
The Assassination of Dr. David Kelly of MI6 and Porton Down has deep roots
Dr David Kelly knew too much and died rather mysteriously.
Police have now admitted that the following objects found with his body did not have fingerprints on them:
His mobile phone
A watch
The knife he allegedly used to slash his wrist
The packs of pills he is said to have overdosed on
A water bottle
A secret file of evidence was submitted to the Hutton inquiry by Thames Valley Police.
The contents remain secret.
But 'the cover is publicly available and reveals that the codename for the investigation was Operation Mason.'
This has given rise to 'rumours of a freemasonry angle'.
The start time of Operation Mason is given as 2.30pm on Thursday July 17.
That was at least half an hour BEFORE Dr Kelly set off from his home on his fatal walk.
And, it is nearly ten hours before Dr Kelly's wife rang the police to sound the alert over her missing husband.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)