BS labs

UPDATED with an amazing video at the end (we changed it to a link to the video), the story of Dr. Burzynski and how the FDA works tirelessly to make sure that you never, ever hear about his work on cancer. 

A13 has covered the Armegeddon Virus and the big "debate" over whether or not to publish the research, because some terrorists could get their hands on it, so it is an ethical question. EVEN THOUGH they totally admit that you can't reassort deadly viruses in CAVES.

"These are not easy viruses to reconstruct," Professor Diane Griffin of Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health said in 2005. "You're not going to do this in a cave in Afghanistan."

That's a half-truth. It's true that they don't conduct bioterrorism research in caves. The work is done in labs. Where are the bioterror labs?

The Netherlands has some BSL-3 labs.

How many BSL-3 and BSL-4 (even safer!) labs are there in the world?

And where do they conduct bioterrorism research?
Not in the caves of Afghanistan.

Scientists developed a mutated virus that has the high mortality of H5N1 (60% mortality in humans) PLUS the high contagion of H1N1 (easy to spread as the common cold). A killer virus. The scientists would like to publish the study in academic journals, but what if some bioterrorists replicate their work?

Some fear the virus, if it fell into the wrong hands, could be modified by bioterrorists into a weapon that kills billions of people.

ASSUMPTION #1: The virus is not in the wrong hands now.

ASSUMPTION #2: The virus cannot now kill billions of people.

The Good Scientists made the killer virus BEFORE the Bioterrorists could do it. And the Good Scientists will presumably keep the virus from falling into the wrong hands.

We question those assumptions.

Because let's remember that this is not the first time scientists have done this research. They did this research before, and then later they had a problem with a BSL-3 lab.

HERE IS THE LINK to the original article from January 2004: CDC to mix avian, human flu viruses in pandemic study, CIDRAP 

We don't know who did that research in 2004. But five years later we had the Swine Flu pandemic.

Here is a backup copy that we posted on April 28, 2009, called CDC runs with scissors in 2004, stabs us in the eye in 2009. We always thought it would go down the memory hole.

The very next day after we discovered this old but important news, some clever woman, a widely published author at Natural News, "broke" the story.

Jan 14, 2004 (CIDRAP News) – One of the worst fears of infectious disease experts is that the H5N1 avian influenza virus now circulating in parts of Asia will combine with a human-adapted flu virus to create a deadly new flu virus that could spread around the world.
That could happen, scientists predict, if someone who is already infected with an ordinary flu virus contracts the avian virus at the same time. The avian virus has already caused at least 48 confirmed human illness cases in Asia, of which 35 have been fatal. The virus has shown little ability to spread from person to person, but the fear is that a hybrid could combine the killing power of the avian virus with the transmissibility of human flu viruses.
Now, rather than waiting to see if nature spawns such a hybrid, US scientists are planning to try to breed one themselves—in the name of preparedness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will soon launch experiments designed to combine the H5N1 virus and human flu viruses and then see how the resulting hybrids affect animals. The goal is to assess the chances that such a "reassortant" virus will emerge and how dangerous it might be.
CDC officials confirmed the plans for the research as described recently in media reports, particularly in a Canadian Press (CP) story.

That very same day, April 29, 2009, the WHO raised the pandemic alert to level 5, warning of widespread human infection from the Swine Flu.

Does anyone remember Jane Burgermeister, who was fired from her job after filing criminal charges against some powerful people?
She was European Correspondent for the website of Renewable Energy World, a position from which she was suddenly dismissed in July 2009 after filing a series of criminal charges against Baxter, WHO and others.
She started up the birdflu666 blog to alert people about the fact that Baxter had contaminated 72 kilos of seasonal flu with the bird flu virus in an Austrian lab in Feburary 2009, nearly sparking a global bird flu pandemic, according to the Times Of India.
Baxter made this "mistake" in a BSL-3 lab.

Jane Burgermeister sent this information to the FBI in June of 2009:
The amount of material was 72 kilograms.
This material was sent to 16 labs in four countries under a false label.
The 72 kilos of live bird flu virus was destined for the seasonal flu vaccine.
The deadly mixture of live bird flu virus and human flu virus were mixed in a Biosecurity level 3 facility, where basic protocol and procedures would make it impossible to ever mix a live virus bioweapon with vaccine material by accident.
The mixture was a super-wide spectrum combination H3N2 seasonal flu virus and live, unlabeled H5N1 viruses. If both strains were to incubate and recombine in a human host, a virus could mutate  via "reassortment" into a virulent airborne weapon that would cause a pandemic.
The material was not radiated before it was sent out, leaving the deadly virus alive. It was only detected when a lab member in a lab in the Czech Republic tested a portion on ferrets and these died.
Lab staff in Austria and the Czech Republic were subsequently given preventative treatment against the bird flu in hospitals in Vienna, Austria.
The CDC begged scientists to reassort the viruses before, in 2004, and presumably they did, "in the name of preparedness," although we don't know who did the research.

And then, five years later, Baxter mixed some seasonal flu virus with LIVE UNLABELED H5N1 virus, in a huge batch of vaccine sent to 16 labs in four countries. Luckily, and we mean it, someone tested the material on ferrets, which have a respiratory tract very similar to humans, and the ferrets died. So the material was recalled. But, no one was held accountable. Jane Burgermeister filed some criminal charges and Jane became targeted.

All of this has apparently been shoved down the memory hole now that we are having a big ETHICAL DEBATE over the "Armageddon virus" research.

The debate sets up a problem. Some people love setting up problems because it allows them to come up with solutions.

The problem is censorship, according to the article. Censorship is bad, as everyone knows. It is anti-freedom. Thus the question becomes: Should the science be censored?

Well we have news. Science is already censored. Lots of secret science is conducted, and has been conducted. Secret science and technology has been kept hidden to create a huge technology gap, and this huge technology gap allows evil people to play God with you and your loved ones.

How many ways can we say it?

See: use your imagination to fill in the gap
See: disaster memory hole 
See: one point for being close
See: miss chimera virus
See: filling the gap
See: white horse or spaceship
See: more regrettables
See: alien fail
See: something is missing
See: getting away with murder
See: Acts of God? depends on who you worship

Why isn't the debate: What kinds of life-saving technology has been kept from the world? Who allowed that to happen?

Why isn't the debate: Why are scientists allowed to do bioterrorism in the first place? The last time this happened they nearly sparked a global pandemic. No one was ever held accountable. Why were scientists allowed to do the research in the first place, and why are they doing it again?

But no, those debates would be very inconvenient. So instead we have a convenient little debate over censoring the science. And, naturally, they have a solution. Returning to A13's post:

But what about the scientific ideal of freely sharing information and ideas? Shouldn't scientists refuse censorship by governments?

Dr Selgelid said censorship should occur only in exceptional cases, but that precedents have already existed for decades in the nuclear industry.

"In nuclear physics, discoveries with weapons implications are automatically born classified in the United States whether or not the research is funded by governments."

To ensure that any such censorship is justified and verified, an international body similar to the NSABB and under the auspices of the WHO could be set up, with a panel of experts in both the science and security fields examining research that could lead to potentially severe impacts on public health, Dr Selgelid said.

The body should also have the power to impose binding decisions under international law, he added.
"This study reveals that biological sciences are now in a situation similar to that of atomic physics at the time when key discoveries were made that enabled the production of the first atomic weapons," he said.

"This is a key moment in the history of biology."

Other controversial studies in the past decade:

By the way, you will not find the 2004 CDC-sponsored research or the Baxter Incident in the list.

But you see, the SOLUTION to the PROBLEM of all this controversial scientific research is a New International Body under the auspices of the WHO, staffed with EXPERTS, who have the POWER to impose binding decisions under international law. And this body would be the Trusted Authority between YOU and the Good Scientists doing their research.

The Good Scientists would conduct their research, such as bioterrorism, and then send it to the New International Body, who would review it and decide whether or not the information can be shared.

THAT would make us safe from bioterrorists, so the theory goes.

Suppressed science? This will make your blood boil.  Burzinsky Movie

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, especially for anyone who knows anyone who has ever suffered through cancer -- which is just about everyone. Just imagine how many people died from cancer in the twenty years the FDA has harassed this man instead of supporting him.

1 hour 45 minutes


james said...

"The Good Scientists would conduct their research, such as bioterrorism, and then send it to the New International Body, who would review it and decide whether or not the information can be shared.

THAT would make us safe from bioterrorists, so the theory goes."

Conveniently, it would also make us safe from any whistleblowing research, too.

kenny said...

Very good pez. They want to be able to kill a great number of us when they feel the need arises.

Do you think 'they' actually have or will have the "preventative treatment" to save themselves if the decision is made to unleash some new viruses on a massive scale? Even psychopaths would want to feel confident that they would survive.

A. Peasant said...

hi James,
yes absolutely it provides an exceedingly convenient way to cover up / disappear any problem.

hi Kenny,
i would absolutely expect they have whatever required to "not be involved" in the pandemic. i pursued that line of thinking about radiation, figuring they had to have some antidotes to protect themselves, and ended up learning about Peter Kawaja...


anti-radiation antidotes are connected to people like Jerome Hauer, who became a director of Hollis-Eden Pharmaceuticals -- also in 2004, and that company was into this sort of research. i think 2004 was a very important year in the "plan." seems like it keeps popping up.

Anon said...

Bet they lose the antidote.

- Aangirfan

Nom du jour said...

Hi AP. This Jerome Hauer? We can be sure everything's kosher if this is the guy...


Jerome Hauer is among the small group of key individuals who are suspected of playing crucial roles is setting the stage for Israeli false-flag terror attacks of 9-11.

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York appointed Jerome M. Hauer, to lead the newly created Office of Emergency Management in 1996
Hauer was the first director of Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management. He directed the agency since 1996, when Giuliani shifted responsibility for the city's emergency preparedness from the Police Department to the new agency – headed by Hauer, a person he did not even know. How odd.

The New York Times wrote in May 2007:

Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Hauer began their relationship in January 1996 when Mr. Hauer was hired to lead the new Office of Emergency Management, created to coordinate the city’s response to crises. Mr. Hauer, who was little known before he became a Giuliani aide, had previously run emergency management programs for the State of Indiana and IBM.

Oddly, the New York Times never mentions Jerome Hauer's deep family roots in the New York Jewish Zionist community. From reading the Times, one might think that Hauer is from Indiana. This can only be intentional. Hauer's mother, Rose Muscatine Hauer, is the retired Dean of the Beth Israel School of Nursing and the Honorary President of the New York Chapter of Hadassah, the Daughters of Zion movement that is one of the central Zionist organizations involved in the creation and maintenance of the State of Israel.

Jerome Hauer is the son of the late Milton G. Hauer and Rose Muscatine who married April 4, 1949. His mother's parents, Hyman David Muscatine (1881-1964) and Rebecca Bertha (nee Gartner), were Hebrew-speaking Zionists. They both came to the United States in 1908-1909; Hyman from "Russia Poland" in 1908 and Rebecca from the Austrian Empire in 1909. His father's parents, Moritz and Gussie Hauer, immigrated from Hungary before the turn of the century.

Jerome Hauer, however, is best known for being the director of the OEM when he made the decision to build a $13 million crisis center on the 23rd floor at 7 World Trade Center. This bizarre crisis center was unveiled in June 1999, and became the subject of tension between the agency and the Police Department, whose own command center at 1 Police Plaza had until then been the focus of emergency preparedness operations.

Jerome M. Hauer, who has strong family connections to the State of Israel, built the bizarre crisis center for the Office of Emergency Management in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7, the 47-story tower which was demolished by explosives in the afternoon of 9-11. As the first director of the new crisis center, "one of Hauer’s first tasks was to find a home for an emergency command center to replace the inadequate facilities at police headquarters," according to the Times.

Reports indicate that the OEM crisis center at the World Trade Center was not being used on 9-11 by the usual personnel. The center had been temporarily relocated to Pier 92 on Manhattan’s West Side, due to a FEMA drill which was supposed to begin on the day after 9-11, according to statements made by Mayor Giuliani.

So who was in the OEM center in Larry Silverstein's building on 9-11? That's the question the needs to be answered.

Hauer's "crisis center" for the Office of Emergency Management occupied the 23rd floor of the Israeli-built tower owned by Larry Silverstein. It should be noted that the OEM crisis center was constructed (like the damaged section of the Pentagon) by the same British company (AMEC) who was contracted to clean up the rubble from the WTC and the Pentagon. The blast-proof bunker occupied the floor with the blue glass stripe, about halfway up the tower.



A. Peasant said...

yes that's the guy.


james said...

"Just imagine how many people died from cancer in the twenty years the FDA has harassed this man instead of supporting him."

they actually mention this figure towards the end of the movie but don't emphasise it which is a shame. It's 10 million Americans. This figure would be far higher worldwide obviously.

I was just thinking that a useful figure for the researchers for the movie to have unearthed would have been the amount of profits the drug companies have made from their murderous treatments in this same period i.e. how many lives for how many dollars.

Given that both the radiation and the chemical treatments burn tissue, this offering to Mammon could be called a holocaust.

I wonder what Dr Michael Friedman, late of the Cancer Institute and now ensconced in the FDA would react to that description?

james said...

Some more information on Dr Michael Friedman who is seem in the movie-

Last month Michael A. Friedman, MD, was named President and Chief Executive Officer of City of Hope National Medical Center and Beckman Research Institute in Los Angeles, which this year celebrates its 90th anniversary.

Dr. Friedman is no stranger to academia: He started his career with a 10-year stint at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Medical Center, first as an associate professor of medicine and later as interim director of the Cancer Research Institute.

In 1983, he moved to the NCI, where he served as Chief of the Clinical Investigations Branch in the Division of Cancer Treatment before moving on to become Associate Director of the Division's Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program.

In 1995, he was recruited to the FDA, where he served as Deputy Commissioner and was eventually tapped by President Clinton to serve as Acting Commissioner of the Agency.

In 1999, Dr. Friedman moved to the private sector, accepting the position of Senior Vice President of Clinical Affairs at Searle/Monsanto, a division of Pharmacia Corporation.

Most recently, Dr. Friedman served as Senior Vice President of R&D, Medical and Public Policy for Pharmacia, which was recently acquired by Pfizer. Concurrently, he held the position of Chief Medical Officer for Biomedical Preparedness at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Frieman bio

Viewers of the movie will remember that PhRMA (as well as the FDA) lauched legal actions against Dr. Burzynski.

He is a clasic example of why I never trust a man who wears a bow tie :D

A. Peasant said...

yes i saw that at the end. that other colleague doctor featured (name escaping me) makes many excellent points at the beginning and end of the movie.

and who is Dvorit Samid? how unfortunate that someone so treacherous ended up infiltrating Burzynski's team. i doubt that was by chance.

james said...

The other doctor was Julian Whitaker


jungle jane said...

"Why isn't the debate: What kinds of life-saving technology has been kept from the world? Who allowed that to happen?

"Why isn't the debate: Why are scientists allowed to do bioterrorism in the first place?"

You're right, that's the whole problem - we don't ask the right questions...the right people don't ask the right questions, when they do they're disappeared.

We're supposed to eat, work, sleep on meds and keep the wheels turning. A friend of mine tells me until we all go on strike, no work, school, shopping..just stop the nonsense i.e. every day "life". What the heck have we got to lose. and we can spend that time with family, if one is so inclined and likes one's family :) and evolving our consciousness.

there are many cures, and many preventatives, alleopathic, healthy but one has to do one's research. I'm always blasted amazed that when I speak to people that are ill they haven't used the tool we have to flesh out why their sick, what it comes from, what can I do about it. Lazy or afraid or both or neither I don't know. Some of us are just fighters? Curious? Whatever it is we are a minority, at least here in this agricultural community. But day by day a little more light is thrown out, it's like hard to realize, y'know? I'm sure those poor people have hamster brains, thanks to the insane schooling. I remember hockey, baseball, gymnastics (of course always the gay women gym teachers to titter about) but here on this island the kids do not have basketballs in the schools, no gym equipment unless the teacher pays for it. So we have a half asleep, unhealthy bunch of kids with diabetes, a generation of autistic zombies. I WISH i was exagerating. And no possible way out, because no one wants to farm anymore. My town used to be the highest in income from agriculture. Now it's known for the most cases of AIDS.

A. Peasant said...

Jane you are correct that they frame everything, including the questions. maybe especially the questions. a lot of people have been lulled into a false sense of security.

i'm sorry to hear that your town is not faring any better than anywhere else. do you have the damn chemtrail planes flying over Puerto Rico also?

jungle jane said...

when I first got here one would see a plane overhead mayabe once a month...we'd all stop what we were doing to look up, it was that much of an event and lately, planes are all the place and black ugly helicopters. There was an event where several people from one town were hospitalized and a plane with no visible markings. Some tried to get an ID of this chemical spewing aircraft. But it had none. And it was low enough to see with binoculars.
And vaccinations; it's not uncommon to meet someone with both children AutisticK. It feels like natural immunity is way down here. It's like people are too sick to care. And we also have our neswest tourist attraction the retrofited HAARP in Arecibo (just when i was feeling so good about being far from radio waves and cancer towers).

jungle jane said...

drats! not sure if I blew my answer! yes, we have planes and HAARP now.
I just wanted to say that's a good probe about Samid. That doctor is a good good man. It's so hard to wrap your head around the fact that he's like this magnificent angel, and being persecuted and The FDA and most every other doctor pushing poison drugs gets recognition and 'respect'. He saves lives and gets thrown under the bus, they kill people and have the pride of the good slave. Makes me nauseous dizzy! I met a woman, actually she hit my truck, who came to my visit me - we're friendly ehre - and brought two grandchildren both of whom were autustic. Lemme tell ya, I still get chills thinking about it. And when I bring up, 'you know, it's vaccinations that are..." I get cut off, "yes," and it's like I'm talking to myself. Again :) It's enough to make you spit nails.
We have had low flying unidentifiable planes, causing a whole town to be sick. ID removed from plane. And it's common to see planes overhead now, recently amped up activity within the past two years. We would only see one or two planes a month overhead, and now we also have military copters, and militarized force of tax eaters.

Anonymous said...

Hey AP

Things are heating up in the American GOP primary. It's amazing to watch (if not a bit paralyzingly sad).

unrep - v-word. Yup.

And I was totally going there.

It's an interesting time in American propaganda studies right now.

The left has Maddow saying espousing one night that RP is the only Republican candidate that doesn't want the US to start another war. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTHrbYllfk4

Then, following that...she proceeds in another show to inform the Iowan people that their votes don't mean anything regarding the presidency. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxwirA0nr9M (Her stats seem sound, it's the overall narrative...very in/out, against/not so against that's weird.) Other notable liberals have "slipped" and seemingly endorsed him.

Meanwhile, on the neo-can right...Hannity, O'Reilly, Dick Morris(ha!), and especially, and with extreme vitriol bordering on mouth-foaming hatred, Mark Levin.

It's absolutely astounding to watch. These tv and radio guys, who have built themselves up to be 100% pro-American, pro-Constitution, anti-marxists, openly deriding (and subtly denigrating) the ONLY guy in the past 30 years with any consistency. Total pysop, maybe.

I can't let myself get that hopeless. While it's wrong to put too much faith in one person...I can't help but feel he's made a difference among the youth. HEll, even i didn't know shit about the Fed until I learn of him, and I', 36.

Of course, it feels like America has been in the relief phase for the past 10 years...Time to squeeze them back into stress phase for a bit, eh?

I try to find the positive in things, I admit. Though a skeptic, ultimately, I'm optimistic. (based on a personal experience and a cartoon my dad gave me along time ago;-)

At the very least, he's opened some eyes. (Then again, so has Alex Jones, and I don't like him at all, except for that fact, which makes "eye-opening" even more questionable.)

Perhaps the entire op is to create "UN-stabilization". (Channeling Kissinger there, obviously;)

Or maybe we're winning...the battle of ideas. Wouldn't that be something?

Why does that idea carry a sense of dread with it, when it should carry nothing but hope and joy? As though we were about to be punished for such a thing?

Switters said...

v-word reteno

It's feels undeniably pollyanna-ish to believe that anything on Fox could be actually good for the American people. I'd really have to say that's it downright absurd to even consider the thought. So what's the deal with Napolitano? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V4oqr5iP-g&feature=youtu.be just another sell-out, or someone naive, too blinded by ideology to realize he's being played? Or maybe he knows he's being played and figures there will be a spot for him underground.

Or is he a tool. like a PRV (pressure relief valve) personified?

Then you have this type of video coming out over the past couple years... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnJ1rOFK7o&feature=related -- Monetization of souls?

Just seems convenient...or is it inevitability?

I know this isn't on-topic and I apologize for the rambling. Feels like things are speeding up, or maybe I'm just getting older...and that's how it's supposed to feel.

A. Peasant said...

hi jane,
thanks for the info. i'm reading a book by Nick Begich (posted videos of him a week or two ago) and basically they have so much secret technology -- the military. there's a war on people, and we don't even know what weapons they are using, but i think chances are excellent that they have very intentionally made people passive, as you say "too sick to care." from what i'm reading they have had the ability to do this without our knowledge for a very long time, and we know they have no compunctions about doing massively evil, indiscriminate things.

A. Peasant said...

hi swits, i have to check out the videos later. all i can say is all disinfo comes packed in truth. so if the messenger is very good, he will say a LOT of things that are truthful. but there is always a misdirection.

i think the main problem we have is understanding what a new financial system should look like. the people are not being given all the options. gold backed currency, in my limited understanding, is not a good option because once again, someone owns the gold. gold can be confiscated and amassed, etc. currency should be issued by the government of a country based on the country's labor and productivity -- ie: the people are the actual assets. obviously we live in a world where people are not valued as assets. they are trying to kill us, so clearly they have a different idea in mind. if a currency was based on the productivity of a nation's people, the country would be interested in health, education and welfare of the people.

James can explain all this better than i can. he probably has something written about it at WPC, in fact i'm sure he does. i'll ask him to get us a link.

as far as i know RP supports a gold backed currency. i consider this a very serious misdirection that will eventually benefit the same people in power today. all the politics is a big three ring circus.

Anonymous said...

He is for a gold standard, but also for competing currencies. The idea is you could have silver backed money, google bucks, ComEd dollars, etc. It's an interesting idea, sort of like Kennedys silver certificates.

james said...

regarding currency and gold, APea covered all the bases.

What every country needs is for its representative government to be the sole issuer of ALL monies with banks unable to create credit through checking a/cs and credit cards. They would be reduced to lending money from their own reserves just as building societies do now.

Prosperous conditions can be easily achieved by matching the amount of money issued (at low or no interest) with the productive capacity of the population. This ensures full employment with no inflation. Its exceedingly simple.

The govt can issue money by either spending it into the community (to pay for social security or infrastructure projects at no cost to anyone) or lending it into the community through low interest loans (the interest from which would be income for the government)
The end result from this simple move would be a peaceful and prosperous country with little to no taxation.

As APea said, a currency is given worth by the people who do the producing. So a country's money supply is backed by the country's GDP (the total value of a country's production of goods and services in a given year). That is always the reality whether or not you can exchange a dollar for a speck of gold or not. The point of having gold as the so called backer of the currency is to give control over that same currency to those who own the gold and we are back to square one.

The owners of the gold will limit how much money we can have and so also limit the wealth we can create for ourselves and keep us forever dependent on them.

After the Spanish started stealing gold from south america, they experienced a booming domestic economy. It was simply because the extra gold was converted into extra money which allowed extra production to be produced and traded.

They could have experienced exactly the same thing by having a properly managed fiat currency. Fiat currencies are not backed by hot air as many would have us believe. They, like ALL currencies, are backed by the amount of goods that can be bought with them - the country's GDP which is the productivity of the people.

That is why the money supply belongs to the people as a whole and it is theft of grand proportions on the part of bankers to have dispossessed us of it.

Ron Paul with his 'gold backed currency' is playing directly into the bankers hands and should be avoided for that very reason regardless of whether or not anybody thinks he knows what he is doing.

A. Peasant said...

thanks James for your excellent explanation.

this whole thing was not clear to me for a long time, and James explained it to me. the part that i didn't get was this:

"Prosperous conditions can be easily achieved by matching the amount of money issued (at low or no interest) with the productive capacity of the population."

the productive capacity of the population = the size of the money supply, or to be even clearer, the money supply REFLECTS the productive capacity of the people. the value that the money is based on is the people.

thus it is obvious that healthy, educated people are in the country's best interest, IF this is the currency model.

we have the opposite situation: sick, programmed, poorly educated people. that is because we are not important to the currency model, we are extraneous, because the currency is denominated on oil, not in human capacity for production and creativity. so what difference if they pick a metal, any metal? no difference. it's the same shit different day.

it's such a simple thing but so powerful once understood.

jungle jane said...

They do massively indiscriminate things all the time and they always have and most likely, always will, unless they get carried away with say HAARP and blow up the mother we stand on entirely and would that be a surprise. Deception and deceit are always on the menu. I don't know much about the gold standard system. Infact didn't know about the FRS, fractional lending or any of that until four years past. But somehow they'll make that evil too. Evil people. It's catchier than a cold. No Fear!! I like to see the world as it really is rather than how they want us to see it. it's why I haven't had a tv, almost never.
Nick Begich's book: interesting to see what he knows about the military and this insane assanine HAARP thing. Frankly, I'll be surprised if the 'Mother Ship' doesn't get so sick of our abuse that she implodes - except nature is so forgiving. If we can call God
"love" for a moment we can see it's all wrong. As you say so wisely, humans want to cooperate and show compassion, it's our nature. Behavior is so modified that humans are like zombies and reflections of the sociopathic phony society we liv in.
Yes, I think we have to look more at what really is rather than what they want us to see, as you've also said. Intentions are real. Maybe that's all that's real. Because I am sick thinking that I caused even a photon of the insanity - but of course, we all did. Tryig to correct that takes all of us together feeling our feelings and when yer getting bombarded with one thing after another...it's really time to disconnect and breath in and feel ourselves. At least for me. Okay, but I do have an obsession to read every word you write, and am grateful for your fearlessness & sense of humor without which hari kari would look good.

A. Peasant said...

thanks jane, you are a love. somehow i have managed to not throw in the towel. it's not over yet is what i figure.

anyway it's funny you should remark on being positive because i am just now listening to a podcast here:


show 88. i haven't listened in many weeks. he's talking about the human condition, healing our world view, etc. what is our view of human nature? our view of the value of the individual? our view of the possibility for change?

in all cases the controllers want us to have a poisoned view -- that people are evil and worthless, that we can't change. they thrive when we believe these things. hard as it might be, and not to be deluded about what is realistic, it's very important to resist succumbing to doom and gloom thinking, to keep it going one more day.

remember, every day that they haven't pulled the trigger on whatever disaster they have planned is a day that we win. time is not on their side.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the insights, James and AP. James, I've read your WP blog occasionally, and your research and articles are always top notch.

Because of Paul, I've become sympathetic to the Austrian school of Economics, which promotes a hard currency, instead of the Keynesian model, which seems to have been proven a failure.

Didn't Germany have a labor-backed currency back pre-WW2? There are people who say that giving control of the issuance to the Congress (the Constitutional approach) would lead us to even bigger calamity, but it has to be better than having the private Fed, issue debt notes.

James' idea sounds feasible, except for one part that struck me.

"the productive capacity of the population = the size of the money supply"

How does the fact that Americas manufacturing base has been shipped off, and we're now a largely service based economy affect this.

I understand your point regarding gold, and the Golden Rule (He who has the gold makes the rules)...but could competing currencies make a dent in this? You would think in our modern age, this wouldn't be a problem.

If they were to repeal the legal tender laws, wouldn't the good money chase out the bad?

I can't shake the feeling that after 100 years of plunder, the Fed is being dismantled, lest the people become a too informed on what it's done to the world. But it's being dismantled in a "controlled" way. Slowly making the paper valueless (backed by aircraft carriers?), then pull the rug out from beneath it (via China?) and, after a certain period of suffering, come to the rescue through the World Bank, IMF, etc..

Ahh interesting times...time to test out my new absinthe fountain and Leopold Brothers Verte :-D

james said...

Apea said, “the productive capacity of the population = the size of the money supply, or to be even clearer, the money supply REFLECTS the productive capacity of the people. the value that the money is based on is the people.”

APea is exactly right again :) There is a fundamental equation in economics that reflects this basic truth. Understanding it is crucial to economic management yet seemingly few economists have any idea of the truth and therefore power that rests in this simple equation. It is the economic equivalent of Einstein's E=MC2.

It is this. P=MV

P= production i.e. GDP or the total value (denoted in dollars) of the wealth created by people in a country in a given year.

M= the size of the Money Supply (M3) we all have to buy that wealth that was created (GDP). (M3 is the amount of notes and coins [M1] together with the total credit balances in all the bank a/cs in the land [M2] plus some Bills of Exchange and a couple of other things I don't understand!)

V= the velocity of the Money Supply i.e. how fast people spend the money they get. In boom times the money supply (M) will turnover 1.1 times overall in a given year. In depressed times it will turn over 0.9 times. SO for our purposes we can say it turns over on average of 1.0 times which also means we can leave it out of our calculations without affecting the outcome.

So simplifying this down, Pproduction and therefore employment) will rise to the level of money (M) available to purchase said production.

So increasing Money Supply leads to increasing prosperity until the productive capacity of a nation is totally employed. Then if M is increased further the prices of Production and not the amount of P will increase to match the level of Money. i.e. we now have price inflation.

This is what happened in Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920's. The private banks printed massive amounts of money (while blaming the government for it ever since) and lent it into the economy and massively inflating the price of any goods on sale. The purpose was to collapse the economy, destroy people's savings and buy up assets with foreign currency at firesale prices. It worked.

On the other side of the Atlantic a few years later in the 1930's, the bankers reduced M (the Money Supply) to one third of its level of the 1920's and created the Great Depression.

So controlling the level of money (not whether it is gold backed) is what determines a sound economy. Too much and you have inflation; too little and you have depression and deflation. Having too much and keeping it out of the productive economy and channelling it into speculation, as at present, will result in both inflation and depression at the same time.

It is a very very simple mechanism. Hence the mountain of economic jargon and nonsense to hide this simple truth.

As for gold backed; if you can exchange your digital or paper currency for gold, it is still not much use to you if you can't exchange it for goods for whatever reason. So the gold itself is given its value by the goods that are exchanged for it. Goods that are created by productive people and who are willing to accept your gold for it. Gold is attractive only because currencies are kept unstable by private bankers who have no interest in having a stable money supply. It is worth bearing in mind that these same bankers also control all commodity markets including the gold market and regularly run it up and down to suit their own purposes which always amount to taking wealth out of your pocket and putting it into theirs without providing anything of value in exchange. This is also known as stealing!

Some quotes and links to further reading will follow in a comment below-

james said...

Some quotes and links to further reading-
the first is an article part of a series I wrote a couple of years ago.
Warring World(s) Part 4b Introduction to "The System" (cont)

Some quotes and links to further reading-the second is an excellent and wide ranging article by Nikki Alexander from the invaluable Information Clearing House.
Reforming the Global Financial System-
Flushing the Parasites

This article has a list of further links to excellent writers on this subject. I'll include a couple of good quotes from Nikki Alexander's article below-

When Benjamin Franklin was called before the British Parliament in 1757 and asked to account for the prosperity in the American colonies. He replied, "That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one." It was the struggle for financial sovereignty that precipitated the American Revolution when the (Rothschild) Bank of England forced the colonists to give up their own currency.
That war never ended.

Throughout his political life Thomas Jefferson fought off the covert attempts of European bankers to control the nation’s money supply through a privately-owned central bank. Andrew Jackson succeeded in defeating these racketeers, nationalizing the banks and paying off the public debt. Our country then flourished without inflation. When Abraham Lincoln issued ‘greenbacks’ that deprived private bankers of their monopoly control of the nation’s money supply he was assassinated. The international bankers battled for more than a century to establish a private central bank in the United States with the exclusive right to print their own fiat notes and exchange them for government debt. They succeeded in 1913 with The Federal Reserve Act, a covert coup that authorized a private central bank to create money out of nothing, lend it to the government with interest and control the national money supply, expanding or contracting it at will. Representative Charles Lindbergh called the Act "the worst legislative crime of the ages." Fifty years later, President John F. Kennedy almost restored our Constitutional monetary system when he issued debt-free Treasury Notes. He too was assassinated.

james said...

and ......

Money is not a commodity. It is a token of value. Any two people can transfer whatever they like as a medium of exchange. We agree as a group to use one medium of exchange to simplify transactions. The purpose of inventing a medium of exchange is to sustain the flow of goods and services circulating in an economy. If we agreed to use gold or feathers as tokens, the medium of exchange would be finite and too scarce to meet everyone’s needs ~ and a finite physical commodity can be monopolized by individuals who might hoard the tokens and constrict the flow of goods and services that are needed by everyone in society. Paper is plentiful. In theory, we agree to the fiction that paper money and computer credits have value in order to produce and exchange the commodities we need. But they have no intrinsic value.

The pieces of paper and computer entries that are fabricated by private corporations, what we call money, can and should be created and regulated by a legitimate public agency. It is irrational to transfer this vital social function to private corporations that thrive on usury and destabilize economies by expanding and contracting fabricated credit. Usury is not a fact of life, an inherent condition one finds throughout the natural world. It is a man-made concept that could create opportunities for cultures to expand productive activities but which has been historically used by parasites that eventually kill the host.

Money and credit can and should be used to keep the economy flowing, facilitating the exchange of real goods and productive services that meet the needs of society ~ without fabricating debilitating and fictitious debt. This, in fact, was the intention of Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution that authorized only Congress to coin money and regulate its value. The founders of our nation understood that a government does not need to borrow its money from a private corporation. It has the power to create its own money. We are that government and that power belongs to us.

Our government has the constitutional authority to create money and issue credit without ever charging interest or creating debt. It can directly spend this money into circulation and extinguish excess currency to prevent inflation. Or it can charge a reasonable interest rate and use this revenue in lieu of taxes.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the information James. Gonna dive into those links in a sec...

I advocate a change in the system, but it's important that the change I promote is a worthwhile one, and not more of the same wrapped up in a shiny new suit.

The Austrians seemed like the logical solution to the Keynesian problem (love the 2 quotes in this vid- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk -)I've been leaning towards the theory that Keynes wrapped his theory around the objective, a la the manufactured "intelligence" regarding the Iraq war, except in an economic sense.

again, thanka. (also to AP, for not thrashing me for throwing this thread off-topic ;)

james said...

Anonymous said...
Thanks for the insights, James and AP. James, I've read your WP blog occasionally, and your research and articles are always top notch.

Thanks, Switters!

Because of Paul, I've become sympathetic to the Austrian school of Economics, which promotes a hard currency, instead of the Keynesian model, which seems to have been proven a failure.

This needs a comment on its own and I don't have time to do it justice at the moment.

Didn't Germany have a labor-backed currency back pre-WW2?

Don't know, is the short answer! Hitler reintroduced the Government central bank to the chagrin of the jews/zionists who declared war on Germany in 1933 as a result. I cannot remember if the currency was exchangable for gold.

There are people who say that giving control of the issuance to the Congress (the Constitutional approach) would lead us to even bigger calamity,

Yes, there are people that say that and they are, not surprisingly, mostly paid mouthpieces for the bankers. The logic doesn't hold water. If we can't trust our elected representatives with the cheque book, we equally can't trust them with deadly military forces, either. In fact we couldn't trust them to run a kindergarten. Hmm . . . . come to think of it . . . .

but it has to be better than having the private Fed, issue debt notes.

Exactly. At least the congress critters are nominally elected. The bankers have interests diametrically opposed to the citizenry and are most definitely unelected.

James' idea sounds feasible, except for one part that struck me.

"the productive capacity of the population = the size of the money supply"

How does the fact that Americas manufacturing base has been shipped off, and we're now a largely service based economy affect this.

GDP is the measure of goods and services. So services (including such things as insurance, believe it or not) count as wealth. Shipping the manufacturing base offshore drastically weakens the economy and therefore the GDP but the GDP is kept afloat because the world's oil is being sold in $US which means that the world's oil becomes, de facto, part of the US GDP. So everybody else's oil is giving value to the $US. Neat trick on the part of the Banks. They make far more money out of oil than the producing countries. I can explain this further if anybody wants.

continued below-

james said...

(continued from my comment above)

I understand your point regarding gold, and the Golden Rule (He who has the gold makes the rules)...but could competing currencies make a dent in this? You would think in our modern age, this wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not up with what you mean by competing currencies in this instance, I'm sorry.

If they were to repeal the legal tender laws, wouldn't the good money chase out the bad?

Again, I'm not sure about the scenario you are alluding to. Got a reference I can look up to make sure I understand you and the context?

I can't shake the feeling that after 100 years of plunder, the Fed is being dismantled, lest the people become a too informed on what it's done to the world. But it's being dismantled in a "controlled" way. Slowly making the paper valueless (backed by aircraft carriers?), then pull the rug out from beneath it (via China?) and, after a certain period of suffering, come to the rescue through the World Bank, IMF, etc..

The bankers are wanting to replace the $US as the world's reserve currency for world trade with a One World Currency for all transactions worldwide. But I don't think it is anywhere near a controlled change over as you might think. It appears to me that many things have gone wrong with their plans and they are trying desperately to cobble something together on the fly which may well involve China. But it seems to me nothing is certain.

They appear to me to be in a desperate race against time.

Ahh interesting times...time to test out my new absinthe fountain and Leopold Brothers Verte :-D

Interesting, indeed; thinking of the Chinese interpretation of “interesting times” i.e. calamitous.

I'll leave you to your testing and perhaps you could report back to us with your results!!

Anonymous said...

This guy was friends with Larry McDonald, I believe. But who's side is he on? Money wise, it's the people(and troops). Not much by way of corporate. Warning 20 minute American infomercial on Ron Paul. Truly, something to behold, from a social engineering viewpoint.



Anonymous said...

Interesting breakdown of Keynes, based on a Hayak vs Keynes music vid.


james said...

I've been leaning towards the theory that Keynes wrapped his theory around the objective, a la the manufactured "intelligence" regarding the Iraq war, except in an economic sense.

I think you are right to great extent, Switters. It was targetted at a particular social problem and a particular vocal segment of the population.

The Keynesian model is seen as a failure because of the massive govt debt that has been built up. And this was the fatal flaw in his theory i.e. the way it was financed. If government deficit budgets were financed by govt owned central banks, then all would have been fine. Financing the mounting govt deficits from private banks played into their hands. Keynes' excuse was that if he didn't support private bank financing, then his theories would not have been adopted at all.

So this gave immediate relief to the general populace (evidenced by some decades of prosperity) only to create a bigger problem down the track (which we have now). Hence the real reason for his comment, “We are all dead in the end”. Keynes also became Lord Keynes which was a nice reward for not elucidating on the flaw in it to everybody.

There was a large and growing discontent with bankers and govts and the way they managed the economies at the time. The adoption of Keynes' theories may have been a successful attempt to derail such movements as C.H. Douglas' Social Credit movement which I'm sure Keynes borrowed heavily from in forming his theories except Douglas' model would have cut out the banks and the debt. Douglas explained the problems with classical capitalism far clearer than Keynes subsequently did though they were speaking about the same problem.

Douglas was an engineer and it has struck me that all the best writing on economics over the years has been written by engineers. I think it is because they are schooled to take the cause and effect relationship very seriously and not be put off by vague or woolly explanations.

C.H. Douglas' witings

So coming back to your comment, Switters, it could well be that Keynes' model was, indeed, fashioned and aimed at a particular target.

james said...

Hayek's Road To Serfdom is a compelling argument. It describes the weakness of human beings to power and the corruption it brings to the human mind. No argument there from me.

The flaw in Hayek's thinking, though, is that ejecting the govt and leaving the economy to a laissez- faire system is getting rid of the problem. It doesn't. The problem is the bankers that are behind the government and not the government itself. The bankers are behind the markets as well.

Either way they are free to make the money supply and to vary the size of the money supply at will. It is this mismatch of money supply quantity and the quantity of resources of a community or nation that is THE fundamental problem. Laissez- faire economics does NOTHING to alleviate this primary problem.

Regarding “hard currencies”, having productive resources such as physical labour, intellectual skills, raw materials, machinery and productive land all sitting around idle because the nation does not own enough gold to allow it to print enough money to facilitate the use of all these idle resources while people are without housing and food is just plain nuts!

That is exactly what happened in Australia during the Great Depression. The Bank of England withdrew the gold it had lent to the Australian government so the government had to shrink the money supply to match the amount of remaining gold it had. Massive human cost ensued and they would do it again in a flash. Those bankers should have been hung up by their tiny testicles.

The Austrian School's explanation of the mysterious 'business cycle' comes closest to the truth but puts the blame for the varying size of the money supply at the feet of interest rates. The blame lies squarely with the bankers and their lending policy i.e. how much they are willing to lend regardless of what the interest rate is. It should be obvious but it apparently isn't. Amazing for such great intellects. No?!

Pitting the Austrians against the Keynesians is a classic Hegelian Dialectic. I liken it to a game of tennis where the 'opponents' are actually co-operating in putting on a show and captivating the spectators attention when, in this case, we should be looking outside the court. Perhaps at Douglas' Social Credit, for instance.

james said...

Many moons ago scientists thought the heavens revolved around the earth. They had fashioned theories and equations to verify this. But every now and then a planet would be observed moving backwards. How was this possible?

Explanations were put forward and some involved very complicated maths to 'prove' how this was possible. Of course, only educated/trained and intelligent people could follow these explanations. So the average person of average intelligence and average education had no way of credibly arguing with these 'scientists'.
But the foundations that these complex calculations were based on were wrong.

There was one crucial piece of information, one crucial assumption that was wrong. And that was that the heavens including the planets did not revolve around the earth. Now with this piece of missing information, the average person could see exactly what was wrong with all these complex calculations and theories and could see that the disputations that occurred between the scientists were meaningless nonsense. So it is with economists and their theories today.

I mentioned the equation P=MV earlier. The meaning and it's working appear simple and straight forward and they are. It is usually taught in first year economics. But what is not taught is that the banks manufacture M, the money, and that they increase and decrease the level of this money at will and so assume near total control of the economy (Production) as a result; increasing it and decreasing it as they please through their lending policies. This is the primary cause of the otherwise mysterious “business cycle”.

P=MV. If the Money Supply is reduced by calling in overdrafts and not lending, so is the Production reduced and and we have a recession/depression. If the banks increase the Money Supply by lending as much as they can, then the Production increases and we have a boom. There's no mystery to it once this fact is understood. The banks run the economy up and they run it down and profit both ways to our collective expense. All the convoluted theories are nonsense in the face of this fact.

Now that you have the missing piece of information, if you want to read some real nonsense from some highly paid idiots, have a gander at this!

Here endeth the lesson!

A. Peasant said...

many thanks for the outstanding lesson James. i hope other people have been reading, and this deserves to be out of the comments because it is so important.

we see what the problem is, and we see that it doesn't have to be this way. we see how useless our experts are. we see that there are certain people standing in the way of making this right. it is all clear.

anyone in the public eye who is NOT advocating our government printing our own money backed by the productive capacity of the American people is part of the problem.

Penny said...

Hey AP

I have posted an interview about Wheat at my place, give it a listen, you will probably rethink that stuff....
Anyway at the beginning Jan mentions
Dr. Burzynski and his research.
He will be on the gnostic media show some time next month.

Should be good!
In light of what you have here it should be darn good to listen to
I will keep my eye out for it when it appears, I'll post it at my place and link back here, so everyone can get a headful of info!

A. Peasant said...

thanks Pen. not sure i want to stop eating wheat but oh well.... :(

just another thing they wrecked for us? BREAD?? food pyramid 5 servings a day... ?


Penny said...

Hey AP

The wheat is even worse then you can imagine...seriously

the certified nutritionist at my local health food stored told me a couple of years back that his family will not touch the stuff

Then I was listening to another interview with a naturopath and he was mentioning I think it was 5 things you can do for optimal health and ditching the wheat was one of the five.

Then my hubby came home talking about the book wheat belly, someone had read it at work and it impacted them big time

Lo and behold, an interview with the author who is a cardiologist appears...

He implicates it in the epidemic of diabetes.

The doctor and Jan even discuss one component of the wheat that crosses the blood brain barrier of the fetus and possibly being implicated in autism

It seems this nobel prize winning wheat is the stuff of a population reductionist big pharm/big food wildest dreams.

Alot of the info jibes with info I have previous become enlightened with

Oh and btw that movie you posted was excellent and infuriating!

Not sure why, well yah I am, the part where the cancer society undertook to "study" his treatments, with bad protocols and inappropriate doses of meds
was something straight out of the virus and vaccine book (monkey virus)I had read.
Fixing the study to get the wished for results

JJane said...

AP, you sent me down a marvelous rabbit hole from Passio's WOEIH. Just popped out now to water and feed myself, and yes, the Wheat thing comes indirectly from one of the links on Jan Irvin's (marvelous) site, it's Wheat Belly blog, and it seems that wheat ain't wheat and is killing us, slowly, at the preferred temperature. Food pyramid is upside down? why woudl that be a surprise :) slow death... I intend to read Dr. Davis book, because I love bread and tea yet I see it puffs me up. http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/about-the-author/Dr. Getting there from Jan Irvin's site, seems due diligence has been done. I'm curious as to whether one grows and harvests the wheat if it has the same implications. (guess I'm not going to be making that pasta, huh) Jame's explanation of why a gold system is not the answer is so easy to follow and well written well, is it possible for james not to write well? and logical that even i understand it. If RP is the least of two evils aren't we still voting (well, not me) for an evil?! Paz, AP. I'm 62 - I voted only once. Can you guess? the one that had his cigar puffed on in the WH Oval O. I mist abstain from things I don't understand!

JJane said...

All these fallacies they put forward and we literally eat them, as in wheat. little did we know. Of couse it's not the same wheat, but a genetic monster, as our grandparents ate. And Davis puts forth this little ditty: "We know that celiac disease can masquerade as autism, generating the full spectrum of the disorder. We also know that mothers with rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases and families with type 1 diabetes have increased likelihood of autistic children. We also know that autistic kids have an exaggerated reaction to wheat gliadin/gluten, along with increased likelihood of antibodies against gliadin. And wheat consumption has been associated with" - GET THIS - "decreased fertility, suggesting an effect on the fetus and/or the uterine environment."
first they came for the grapes, then the tuna, then salmon...and Congress just passed some insanity that pizza is now a vegetable. well, i guess that's good news to some...

james said...

Hi Jane, thanks for your very nice comment :D

A. Peasant said...

hi Jane,
sorry i'm up to my ass in alligators the last couple of days (and the next few days too :D). also, i am so bummed about about this wheat business that i am delaying looking at it for a few days because it's just too much to process at the moment. so i have nothing intelligent to add just yet. i'll check out what you and Penny discovered when i relax with some wine, or beer. or a cocktail. more grain products, oh fuck....

Anonymous said...

Thanks James, for the info...a lot to digest...and ponder...can we help tweak the "march of progress"? Maybe. Thee problem is that both schools are entrenched in their philosophies.

And thank you AP, for continuing a sure where I can speak freely, in search of answers in a world that throws nothing but then at me...yet all seem wrong.

A. Peasant said...

hi swits,
i'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. it is a lot to digest but when it clicks...

i guess finding out sooner is better than finding out later though.

JJane said...

Ap, "up to my ass in alligators" is the funniest aliteration I've ever heard!! I'm loving it, gorgeous. You know that when you have cocktails to enjoy, the enjoying is great for your health. Yes, we sure are mired ina swamp of evil. About that wheat...well, better to know, eh. Wonder if the wheat were organically grown? pretty soon we'll all be baking our own bread - with almond flour, real foods. Each year, or maybe month, we find more things that aren't real, and go through the process of accepting what is. It can only be good - just you enjoy those cocktails. I can't drink, being so cantankerous my friends can't stand me as it is. Haha:) Wishing you a Merry Christmas, a beautiful solstice of calm and peace. Enjoy the cocktails, kick the alligators :)

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.