View Single Post
Old 05-21-2008, 09:54 AM
lou_lou's Avatar
lou_lou lou_lou is offline
In Remembrance
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: about 45 minutes to anywhere!
Posts: 3,086
15 yr Member
lou_lou lou_lou is offline
In Remembrance
lou_lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: about 45 minutes to anywhere!
Posts: 3,086
15 yr Member
Arrow dear cs -this is my opinion...

Thank you for asking for opinions -dear cs!
as you know I always have one!

I see People as the top of the Food chain...
actually Rich greedy People are the top of the food chain

we that were born healthy did not come into the world with an Rx tatooed
to our lil bottoms!

Hippocrates of the old greek world - supposedly the father of medicine said -
let you medicine be your food -and your food medicine.

enter greed into the equation
one of the names of greed is - MONSANTO
when we poison the crops -which poisons the ground and gets into the groundwater and kills the bugs and bees, and the fish & makes frogs degenerate having both male and female reproductive organs-
the chemicals have altered the DNA and the RNA...
and therefore~
we are in deep trouble...
nutrition was actually the type of doctor that Hippocrates was -
and Ayuveda is all about nutrtion -how we can - or cant digest food...
~~~~~~~~~~
when the greed for crops to flourish without failure, and income of loot
is so tempting -the Monsanto's of the world have began the killing cycle

here is a sample from farming for fertility:

Animal Nutrition and Health
“We are prone to destroy the beast when it aborts, when it gives midgets, or when it contracts a disease common to ourselves. Destroying the evidence is apparently a more common practice than diagnosing it to find the cause of the abnormalities”. — William Albrecht

Several years ago, I was visited by a sheep grazier from South Australia who had converted his property to organic in 1963. I asked him what he did about worms in his sheep. “I used lead,” he said. “For the first three, or four years after conversion, I shot any sheep with worms and I slowly bred the susceptibility out of them”.

This does not mean that organically raised sheep never get worms. Parasitic worms in livestock like fungal disease organisms in the soil, are always present. It is only when they get out of hand that they are a problem. It is very likely that a low level of some of them are essential to the livestock’s well-being.26 The causes of worm problems include stress, genetic susceptibility and malnutrition. One of the main problems of our recent worm control strategies has been the covering up of genetic susceptibility. Prior to the widespread adoption of anthelmintics, susceptible beasts were either culled by the grazier, or Nature. In personal comment on this, a member of the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry told me that parasitic worms were more prevalent in livestock today than they were prior to the introduction of modern anthelmintics. Since there are no new anthelmintics on the horizon and there is widespread resistance to most of those in current use, we have no choice other than to adopt a more organic approach to the problem.

Apart from genetic susceptibility, probably the most prevalent cause of parasitic worm problems is nutritional stress. The pursuit of higher grass yields, regardless of pasture quality, has led to an overall decline in livestock health. This has been masked, not cured, by ever increasing veterinary chemical inputs. I am not arguing here for the elimination of veterinary chemicals, but against farming strategies that necessitate their overuse.

One useful piece of research suggested by my friend Dr Mike Walker would be to question stock agents about the relative health status of a large number of properties. The pastures of those known to produce consistently healthy livestock could then be analysed for their balance of grass species, grazing management and fertility status of the soils.

Many organic farmers go to some lengths to diversify the pasture species grown beyond the usual grasses and clovers. The ubiquitous flatweed plantain, for instance, supplies more protein to stock than clover. When clover is grazed, the nitrogen fixing root nodules detach and decompose in the soil. The released bacterial protein is then consumed by the plantain before it is in turn consumed by the livestock. New Zealand agronomists have developed strains superior to the wild types.

Other useful species that generally need to be sown include chicories, yarrow and sheep’s burnet. Grass, clover and herb mixtures (herbal ley) are readily available from seed merchants in Europe and North America, but sadly not here as yet.

We have already referred to the necessity of balancing the ratios of the major cations, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium in the soil. Not only does this result in better crop health, but also better animal health. Where the soil is unbalanced, the stock’s nutritional requirements can be balanced by the judicious use of mineral licks, or drenches. Pate Coleby, a Gippsland farmer has pursued this route with some interesting results. When her mineral drenches were compared to veterinary chemicals by the Victorian Department of Agriculture, the results were remarkably similar. One suspects that the minerals were considerably less expensive than the veterinary chemicals.

Many organic farmers the author has spoken to emphasise the importance of avoiding stress to livestock as a prime means of avoiding health problems. For instance, Alfred Haupt, a Bio Dynamic sheep grazier and cropper in New South Wales, talks about the different smell of sheep that are frightened. This smell, he says, is attractive to flies. By minimising loud noises (such as those generated by motorbikes and noisy dogs) he reduces fly strike problems. Those few that are struck are treated with a mixture of pyrethrum and garlic. The pyrethrum kills the maggots and the garlic heals the wound rapidly while at the same time repelling flies that may strike the wound again.

http://www.ecogrowth.com.au/farmfert6.html
______________

here is a table from a pdf -called

Wildlife Disease and Zoonotics
Other Publications in Zoonotics and Wildlife
Disease
University of Nebraska - Lincoln Year 1999
Chemical Toxins (Field Manual of
Wildlife Diseases)
Milton Friend


http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/vi...t=zoonoticspub

Pesticides
This group includes chemicals that are used to kill or repel organisms that are unwanted in particular situations.
Insecticides are generally the best known pesticides but others, their target organisms, and examples of compounds
within those groups include the following:
Pesticide type Target organisms Compounds
Acaricides Mites, ticks, spiders Permethrin, Phosmet, Methiocarb, Bomyl®, Carbofuran, Demeton
(Systox®)
Algacides Algae Copper sulfate, Potassium bromide, Chlorine
Antibiotics Bacteria Phenol, Nitrapyrin
Avicides Birds Avitrol®, Fenthion, Compound 1080, Starlicide®
Fungicides Fungi Thiram, Ziram, Captan, Hexaconazole
Herbicides Plants Diquat®, Alachlor (Lasso®), Atrazine
Molluscicides Snails and slugs Bayluscide®, Methiocarb, Zectran®
Nematocides Nematodes (worms) Terbufos (Counter®), Isazofos (Triumph®), Aldicarb (Temik®),
Carbofuran, Diazinon
Piscicides Fish Rotenone, Antimycin
Repellents Mammals Thiram
Birds Methiocarb
Rodenticides Rodents Warfarin, Diphacinone, Brodifacoum (Talon®), Chlorophacinone
Metals
Wildlife may be exposed to metals when they are components of pesticides, such as mercury and cadmium in
fungicides, or through other routes, such as aquatic food chains with high mercury levels.
Metal Source
Arsenic Used as an insecticide and preservative; present in wastes from metal smelting and glass
manufacturing.
__________________

the summize of my opinion isnt why are we sick?
my question is - Why wouldnt we be sick?


we should not be surprised at all - poison kills - Monsanto plants the crops in poison, we eat the crops that are genetically modified, it takes its toll not on just the bugs -the birds the fish -the cows, but it is making us ill -
it is changing our human DNA and RNA, and we will die,
we - are ill to young and too many - I see all these neurological illnesses as
the result of a huge clinical trial.

Hstory repeats itself -

Permissible Medical Experiments
The great weight of the evidence before us is to the effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Of the ten principles which have been enumerated our judicial concern, of course, is with those requirements which are purely legal in nature--or which at least are so clearly related to matters legal that they assist us in determining criminal culpability and punishment. To go beyond that point would lead us into a field that would be beyond our sphere of competence. However, the point need not be labored. We find from the evidence that in the medical experiments which have been proved, these ten principles were much more frequently honored in their breach than in their observance. Many of the concentration camp inmates who were the victims of these atrocities were citizens of countries other than the German Reich. They were non-German nationals, including Jews and "asocial persons", both prisoners of war and civilians, who had been imprisoned and forced to submit to these tortures and barbarities without so much as a semblance of trial. In every single instance appearing in the record, subjects were used who did not consent to the experiments; indeed, as to some of the experiments, it is not even contended by the defendants that the subjects occupied the status of volunteers. In no case was the experimental subject at liberty of his own free choice to withdraw from any experiment. In many cases experiments were performed by unqualified persons; were conducted at random for no adequate scientific reason, and under revolting physical conditions. All of the experiments were conducted with unnecessary suffering and injury and but very little, if any, precautions were taken to protect or safeguard the human subjects from the possibilities of injury, disability, or death. In every one of the experiments the subjects experienced extreme pain or torture, and in most of them they suffered permanent injury, mutilation, or death, either as a direct result of the experiments or because of lack of adequate follow-up care.

Obviously all of these experiments involving brutalities, tortures, disabling injury, and death were performed in complete disregard of international conventions, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, and Control Council Law No. 10. Manifestly human experiments under such conditions are contrary to "the principles of the law of nations as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience."

Whether any of the defendants in the dock are guilty of these atrocities is, of course, another question.

Under the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence every defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent of an offense charged until the prosecution, by competent, credible proof, has shown his guilt to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And this presumption abides with the defendant through each stage of his trial until such degree of proof has been adduced. A "reasonable doubt" as the name implies is one conformable to reason--a doubt which a reasonable man would entertain. Stated differently, it is that state of a case which, after a full and complete comparison and consideration of all the evidence, would leave an unbiased, unprejudiced, reflective person, charged with the responsibility for decision, in the state of mind that he could not say that he felt an abiding conviction amounting to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge.

If any of the defendants are to be found guilty under counts two or three of the indictment it must be because the evidence has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that such defendant, without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted, participated as a principal in, accessory to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, or was connected with plans or enterprises involving the commission of at least some of the medical experiments and other atrocities which are the subject matter of these counts. Under no other circumstances may he be convicted.

Before examining the evidence to which we must look in order to determine individual culpability, a brief statement concerning some of the official agencies of the German Government and Nazi Party which will be referred to in this judgment seems desirable.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sources: U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946 - April 1949. Washington D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949-1953.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...berg_Code.html

please look at these photos of history;
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2..._AUDIOSS.html#

http://tinyurl.com/4vvtoy
__________________
with much love,
lou_lou


.


.
by
.
, on Flickr
pd documentary - part 2 and 3

.


.


Resolve to be tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving, and tolerant with the weak and the wrong. Sometime in your life you will have been all of these.

Last edited by lou_lou; 05-21-2008 at 10:11 AM.
lou_lou is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote