Who is to Pay the Tab?

I am writing in response to the three following (Council of Canadians) exceptional flyers seeking to inform the Canadian populace by unseating commonly-held myths.

1. The myth of the ‘European solution’ A closer look at the U.K., France and Sweden shows the advantages of public health care
http://www.profitisnotthecure.ca/documents/CMA/fs_European_07.pdf
2. The myths of for-profit health care
http://www.profitisnotthecure.ca/documents/CMA/fs_myths_07.pdf
3. Profit is not the cure Canada’s health care system is under threat
http://www.profitisnotthecure.ca/documents/CMA/pintc_07.pdf

I recently received the latest newsletter from “PROFIT® is Not the Cure". At one and the same time as I received a newsletter from another (unaligned group), RE: the latest article from an investigative journalist of very high quality: Evelyn Pringle (http://www.opednews.com/author/author58.html ), which you may view at: OpEdNews Original Content at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_071009
_fda_industry_insider.htm
October 9, 2007 FDA Industry Insiders Derail Approval of New Cancer Treatments

In Canada the argument is "Profit is Not the Cure" as we persistently struggle to maintain OUR public healthcare against steady encroachment by the medical industry, i.e. it is steadily being gutted by private-public partnerships (politicians/CEOs). BUT:

What the public does not know is that - it “don't” really matter who pays the tab -- the core problem with healthcare is that it is corporate-controlled (for-profit) from every perspective and in every aspect, producing astronomical profits for the few, while wreaking human misery and an early death (debilitation/disability/depopulation) for everyone in general. As far as I can judge, those who have privatized the most (U.S.) have in consequence a much clearer understanding of established medicine in its wanton disregard for the sanctity of life.

I noticed when I clicked the action button at the “Profit Is Not the Cure” site – straight away I can “write to Harper” backed up with a “write to my MP”. Now why would we do this? The Conservative promote Private-Public Partnerships as a weapon to privatize – literally everything. Now why would I write to my MP who is a Liberal? The Liberal/Conservative Party plays ping-pong with our votes, while promoting the exact same corporatist platform. “Corporatism is Fascism”. Mussolini

Why not directly – inform - the Canadian Peoples who are/have been/will be fed upon by the established (corporate, institutional, professional) medical industry? A creative option already accessed by Council of Canadians are the above-mentioned flyers, but with a difference. Instead of providing argumentation over examples of healthcare “systems” [read PhRMA Factory (Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturers of America)]--Let’s provide examples as to what it is we are actually paying for, when we support “public healthcare”. And in so doing provide the Canadian populace with a greater understanding as to – why it is our public healthcare “system” may be having a problem in “paying the piper”.

I would suggest informing myth bustin’ examples pertinent to alternative, independent (to/from manufacturer’s meme expressed in corporate media), objective science truths that are primarily involved in medical expenditures. By this I mean – little stories from ‘round the world -- guiding the reader into processing thought for themselves and in consequence, doing their own research by further questioning the validity of established medicine paid for by their tax dollar, having first obtained some clue as to why it is that medicine is so damned expensive—regardless of who is paying the tab. i.e. provide the Canadian populace with some tools to envision the many creative money-saving, albeit rarely patentable ($s), options available to us.
Possible examples of wilful immunosuppression and disease-mongering…

1. AIDS does not exist as it is defined by established medicine. HIV does not equal AIDS. AZT kills. An example story of human misery (physical disease and mental distress) and death might also note the three dozens of diseases directly related to malnutrition and more related to unsanitary conditions that are products of human displacement (Africa) that are all presently being labelled as AIDS, for which expensive AZT is the “medicine”.

2. Vaccination does not exist as it is defined by established medicine. Having antibodies in one’s body does not equal freedom from disease. Vaccines maim and kill. An example story of human misery (physical and mental distress) and death-evasion might also note that private insurance companies do not cover “acts of God” and vaccination, in accordance with how this worked its way out, as a part of an individual’s life story.

3. Cancer does not exist as it is defined by established medicine. Having a malignant tumor does not equal fatal disease. Cancer treatments maim and kill. Example story might be an individual’s story of return to productive health, while noting that their medical practitioner is being harassed out of practice, in accordance with for example: Codex Alimentarius regulations (Health Canada/FDA).

4. Mental Illness does not exist as it is defined by established medicine. Being overwhelmed by a peak episode of mental distress, a consequence of problems in living (oppression, repression, suppression), whether realised or not, does not equal an organic brain disease. Psychiatric treatments (drugs, electroshock, surgery) maim and kill. Example story might be that of an individual maimed for years/decades (debilitation/life-long disability) by established Health and Human Service Industry, but through supportive, psychosocial mechanisms they found holism, peace, and functionality through a mind-healing into a spirit recovery.
The title of such a pamphlet might pertain to the extravagant costs of for-profit medicine. You might begin with a definition for Iatrogenesis. An example from my latest book “Little Davey--View of Reality” (ChipmunkaPublishing, U.K.) as follows…

In 1974, Ivan Illich popularised a term, Iatrogenesis, for the ‘new’ epidemic of doctor-made disease –
• Clinical, when sickness is caused by medical care;
• Social, when health policies reinforce ill health;
• Structural when the medical profession undermines the confidence of people in their
own ability to recover.
Illich I. Limits to Medicine: The Expropriation of Health. London: Penguin Books, 1975.

In his critique of Illich, Vicente Navarro saw that the responsibility for iatrogenesis did not lie with the medical profession but with the powerful corporate classes, which decide what and how health care is delivered. The corporate classes control governments, insurers and PhRMA companies, which, in turn, have almost taken over medical education.
* John Merson calls this phenomenon “Epistemic Capture” meaning the control of knowledge by vested interests.

The costs of corruption and fraud in the established medical industry (beginning with academic indoctrination/programming or professionalism), public brain-washing and meme completion with direct-to-politician propaganda or public-private partnerships will continue to denigrate, negate and finally nullify the health and well-being of the population.

Obviously, public healthcare cannot survive based solely on pursuing financial considerations of – who is to pay the tab!

*

Mental Health Parity & SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program

*The Violence Initiative

I just received this -- hidden in the bill for childrens' healthcare is a "mental health parity" -- it will be disastrous both to states' capacity to pay and to the massive #s of additional children who will suddenly be ingesting these damaging toxic drugs, while those already receiving will be subjected to increased polypharmacy. Only those profiting off of the damage perpetrated through greater dissemination of these chemicals will gain.

Excerpted Statement from Vince Boehm:
We all know that President George W Bush vetoed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, called SCHIP. A proposed bill recently passed in the Congress to expand SCHIP from $5 billion yearly by $35 billion over five years was vetoed by George W. Bush.

SCHIP covered 6.9 million children at some point during Federal fiscal year 2006, and every state has an approved plan. States are given flexibility, and an enhanced match is paid to states. Some states have received Section 1115 demonstration authority to use SCHIP funds to cover the parents of children receiving benefits from both SCHIP and Medicaid, pregnant women, and other adults. However, the program is already facing funding shortfalls in several states.

Now we see yet another Pharma assault on poor kids and children of color deeply buried in the fine print of this massive document. This bill for the first time contains mental health parity and eliminates a provision to ration mental health services in states that already provide this to SCHIP recipients. This provision will do nothing more than fatten the bottom lines of drug companies and their insurance industry friends.

The violence initiative is alive and well. We have witnessed time and again the misuse of powerful psychoactive drugs on children, even those without a psychiatric label. Adding psychiatry on the proposed massive scale could easily double the costs for this program and perhaps push these already beleaguered states into bankruptcy and default. It will add billions to the federal budget, and will produce overwhelming negative outcomes for the kids.

I certainly do not oppose expanding general health care to children who need it, but oppose spending tax payers dollars to finance the violence initiative. I oppose the catastrophic collateral damage that a massive influx of psychoactive meds will leave in it's wake for these 10 million children.

The issue has not been reported as such in the media.
If passed this will be a disaster.

Below is a list of those who voted no on the original bill. It is important that you contact these Congressmen and tell them why you do not support the extension of mental health services to these 10 million children. They are under massive pressure to pass this bill, and need a way to reach a compromise on this situation. Taking out the mental health provisions will accomplish this.

Call other Congressmen as well and express your concerns.

This is a money issue. The lawmakers need a bargaining chip, and the mental health issue will fill the bill. If the lawmakers eliminate the mental health provision in conference and the cost will come out in the affordable range.

Tell your Congressman why the mental health provision should not be passed.

Please Act Now!

If your Representative is on the following list, call today and urge him or her to vote NO for health insurance for children in low-income working families if the mental health provisions are included. And if you know people in those states, forward this email and ask your friends and colleagues who are constituents to make the call.

You may find your members of Congress by entering your zip code or searching for them by name at
 http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt or call 202-225-3121 to be connected. 

Target List of Representatives

AL Robert Aderholt
AR John Boozman
CA Brian Bilbray
CA John Doolittle
CO Marilyn Musgrave
FL Gus Bilirakis
FL Ginny Brown-Waite
FL Tom Feeney
FL Rick Keller
IL Judy Biggert
IL Tim Johnson
IL Peter Roskam
IL Jerry Weller
LA Rodney Alexander
MI Joseph Knollenberg
MI Thaddeus McCotter
MI Tim Walberg
MN Michelle Bachman
MO Sam Graves
NJ Rodney Frelinghuysen
NJ Scott Garrett
NJ Jim Saxton
NY Randy Kuhl
OH Steve Chabot
OR Greg Walden
PA John Peterson
TX Kay Granger
VA Thelma Drake
VA Randy Forbes

Republicans Who Didn't Vote
CA Wally Herger
WY Barbara Cubin

Vince Boehm

The information herein shall not be considered an endorsement of anyone discontinuing psychiatric drugs. If you are stopping taking medication it is advisable to reduce the dose gradually WITH EXTREME CAUTION, as it is difficult to predict who will have problems withdrawing. It is worth getting as much information and support as you can, and involving your doctor wherever possible. You will find withdrawal information here: http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/
Making+sense+of+coming+off+psychiatric+drugs.htm

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON WITHDRAWAL:: Get Peter Lehmann's book, Coming off Psychiatric Drugs: Successful Withdrawal from Neuroleptics, Antidepressants, Lithium, Carbamazepine and Tranquilizers. This valuable resource comes in US, UK, and German editions.

*

Hearing on Mental Health Parity--House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Health

*

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85711 A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943
(800) 635-1196 Omnia pro aegroto
FAX (520) 325-4230

Hearing on Mental Health Parity

Statement of Michael D. Ostrolenk, MA, MFT
Director of Government Affairs

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Submitted to:

House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health
March 26th, 2007

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a national organization of physicians in all specialties, founded 1943 to preserve and promote the practice of private medicine, the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and ethical medical practices. We represent thousands of physicians of all specialties nationwide, and the millions of patients that they serve.

Congress does not itself have the constitutional authority to dictate the practice of medicine, create mandates for private insurance companies or to determine the validity of a diagnostic tool as a payment mechanism.

1. Congress has no authority to regulate the practice of medicine

We are concerned with the fact that the Federal government, which is not authorized under the constitution, specifically Article 1, continues to interfere in the practice of medicine. Medicine has historically been regulated at the State level and each time Congress interferes with the practice of medicine, it violates the 9th and 10th amendment, usurps power not granted by the Constitution, and creates the future perceived need to further intervene to fix secondary problems caused by the original intervention. The Constitution established a national government of delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers. It is clear from our founding fathers that they too saw no place for the Federal government to interfere in the practice of medicine. Specifically, James Madison wrote, in the Federalist, No. 45:"The powers delegated to the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the States will extend to all objects of which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

2. Restoration of true insurance markets

Congress does not have the authority to interfere in the business of insurance. Congressional interference has turned a freer market into a managed market in which mutually beneficial exchanges between buyers and sellers have been impaired. This has led to the general increase of cost of medicine, the reduction in innovation in goods and services, and the mistaken conflation of insurance with medical care. Instead of adding unconstitutional mandates to private insurance companies, Congress should move to abolish all mandates, regulations, and controls. Deregulation of the insurance market by the Federal government would allow individual insurance companies to meet the needs of their clients and allow for unique and innovative insurance products to be developed and offered to the public at large. More importantly, it would free up intellectual capital that is now wasted on compliance costs for actual use in patient care. We oppose the top-down command-and-control system that is now in place and its further centralization and manipulation through coercive expansions of the core benefit package. Instead, we support deregulation of the insurance market as well as of the practice of medicine.

3. Psychiatry differs from other medical specialties

It is very important for Congress to recognize that psychiatry differs in fundamental ways from what might be called somatic medicine. At this time in our history and science, psychiatry is based on subjective reporting and observation of inner experiences or behavior and lacks objectively verifiable tests such as blood tests, imaging studies, and biopsies. While patients do experience real spiritual/emotional/mental/moral problems and exhibit maladaptive behaviors, manifestations that are considered a "mental illness" cannot be defined as a disease in the absence of objective, reproducible somatic abnormalities.

A mental-health parity mandate will turn the current diagnostic standards for psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM- IV), into a standard for payment as well. The DSM-IV remains consensus driven, unsupported by clear empirical data. Neither taxpayer-supported nor private insurers should be forced to cover conditions diagnosable only by consensus of/by self-interested psychiatrists and their partners in the pharmaceutical industry. If insurance subscribers or clients believe mental health coverage or service to be of value, and are thus willing to pay for it, this will be offered in the free market on a contractual basis. All insurance subscribers should not be forced to pay for services that they do not consider to be of value.

The concept of "biopsychiatry," or more popularly "chemical imbalance" is at present merely a theory. Based on this theory, billions of dollars are spent by both public and private entities specifically for psychoactive drugs. Careful post-marketing surveillance of the benefits and harms of such drugs is greatly needed and seriously lacking. Some reports suggest that drugs often cause more problems than they ameliorate, and may induce objective ailments, such as diabetes, which then must be treated. As drugs either first or second line treatment protocol for most so-called "mental illnesses," a mental health treatment mandate can be anticipated to result in increased drug usage, with its attendant problems, and hence an increase in expenditures for both psychiatric and medical treatment.

Conclusion:

Whether through genuine good intentions, or responsiveness to the demands of special interest groups, the Federal government should not regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to access medical care, to privately contract with insurance companies for the goods and services they agree to, and to utilize treatments based on their own needs. Nor should the federal government force people to use or pay for services they do not perceive to be of value. The distinction between objective measurement and subjective reporting, and between empirical data and consensus-driven diagnostic tools, must be recognized. Mental health parity should be opposed on the basis of the U. S. Constitution, ethical medicine, and good science.

Thank you.

The information herein shall not be considered an endorsement of anyone discontinuing psychiatric drugs. If you are stopping taking medication it is advisable to reduce the dose gradually WITH EXTREME CAUTION, as it is difficult to predict who will have problems withdrawing. It is worth getting as much information and support as you can, and involving your doctor wherever possible. You will find withdrawal information here: http://www.mind.org.uk/Information/Booklets/Making+sense/
Making+sense+of+coming+off+psychiatric+drugs.htm

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON WITHDRAWAL: Get Peter Lehmann's book, Coming off Psychiatric Drugs: Successful Withdrawal from Neuroleptics, Antidepressants, Lithium, Carbamazepine and Tranquilizers. This valuable resource comes in US, UK, and German editions.

What's In a Vaccine?

*

http://www.vaclib.org
--U.S.

http://www.vran.org/
--Canada

ammonium sulfate (salt): suspected gastrointestinal, liver, nerve, and respiratory system poison
.
beta-propiolactone: known to cause cancer. suspected gastrointestinal, liver, respiratory, skin and sense organ poison.
.

genetically modified yeast, animal, bacterial & viral DNA: can be incorporated into the recipients DNA and cause unknown genetic mutations.

.
latex rubber: can cause life-threatening allergic reactions. *

.
monosodium glutamate (MSG)/glutamate/glutamic acid: being studied for mutagenic, teratogenic(developmental malformationand monstrosities) and reproductive effects. a neurotoxin. allergic reactions can range from mild to severe. *

.
aluminum: implicated as a cause of brain damage; suspected factor in alzheimers disease, dementia, seizures, and comas. allergic reactions can occur on skin *

.
formaldehyde (formalin): major constituent of embalming fluid;poisonous if ingested, probable carcinogen; suspected gastrointestinal, liver, immune system,nerve, reproductive system and respiratory system poison. linked to leukemia, brain, colon, and lymphatic cancer.

.
micro-organisms: live and killed viri and bacteria or their toxins. the polio vaccine was contaminated with a monkey virus now turning up in human bone, lung-lining (mesothelioma), brain tumors, and lymphomas.

.
polysorbate 80: known to cause cancer in animals

.
tri(n)butylphosphate: suspected kidney and nerve poison

.
glutaraldehyde: poisonous if ingested. causes birth defects in experimental animals.

.
gelatin: produced from selected pieces of calf and cattle skins, de-mineralized cattle bones and pork skin. allergic reactions have been reported *

.
gentamicin sulfate& polymyxin B (antibiotics): allergic reactions can range from mild to life-threatening

.
mercury (thimerosal): one of the most poisonous substances known. has an affinity for the brain, gut, liver, bone marrow, and kidneys. minute amounts can cause nerve damage. symptoms of mercury toxicity are similar to those of autism.

.
neomycin sulfate (antibiotic): interferes with vitamin B6 absorption. an error in the uptake of B6 can cause a rare form of epilepsy and mental retardation. allergic reactions can be mild to life threatening. *

.
phenol/phenoxyethanol (2-PE) used as antifreeze. toxic to all cells capable of disabling the immune system's primary response mechanism.

.
human and animal cells: human cells from aborted fetal tissue and human albumin. pig blood,horse blood, rabbit brain, guinea pig, dog kidney, cow heart, monkey kidney, chick embryo, chicken egg, duck egg, calf serum, sheep blood and others.

* when babies are hours or days old, it is impossible to know if they have an allergy.

copywrite 2003, korean publications, inc. 800-537-3001
FROM: http://www.mothering.com/discussions/archive/index.php/t-367099.html

Hearing on Mental Health Parity

*

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

1601 N. Tucson Blvd., Suite 9
Tucson, AZ 85711 A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943
(800) 635-1196 Omnia pro aegroto
FAX (520) 325-4230
.

Hearing on Mental Health Parity

Statement of Michael D. Ostrolenk, MA, MFT
Director of Government Affairs

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
Submitted to:

House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health
March 26th, 2007
.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a national organization of physicians in all specialties, founded 1943 to preserve and promote the practice of private medicine, the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and ethical medical practices. We represent thousands of physicians of all specialties nationwide, and the millions of patients that they serve.
.
Congress does not itself have the constitutional authority to dictate the practice of medicine, create mandates for private insurance companies or to determine the validity of a diagnostic tool as a payment mechanism.

1. Congress has no authority to regulate the practice of medicine
.

We are concerned with the fact that the Federal government, which is not authorized under the constitution, specifically Article 1, continues to interfere in the practice of medicine. Medicine has historically been regulated at the State level and each time Congress interferes with the practice of medicine, it violates the 9th and 10th amendment, usurps power not granted by the Constitution, and creates the future perceived need to further intervene to fix secondary problems caused by the original intervention. The Constitution established a national government of delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers. It is clear from our founding fathers that they too saw no place for the Federal government to interfere in the practice of medicine. Specifically, James Madison wrote, in the Federalist, No. 45: "The powers delegated to the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce....The powers reserved to the States will extend to all objects of which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."

.
2. Restoration of true insurance markets

Congress does not have the authority to interfere in the business of insurance. Congressional interference has turned a freer market into a managed market in which mutually beneficial exchanges between buyers and sellers have been impaired. This has led to the general increase of cost of medicine, the reduction in innovation in goods and services, and the mistaken conflation of insurance with medical care. Instead of adding unconstitutional mandates to private insurance companies, Congress should move to abolish all mandates, regulations, and controls. Deregulation of the insurance market by the Federal government would allow individual insurance companies to meet the needs of their clients and allow for unique and innovative insurance products to be developed and offered to the public at large. More importantly, it would free up intellectual capital that is now wasted on compliance costs for actual use in patient care. We oppose the top-down command-and-control system that is now in places and its further centralization and manipulation through coercive expansions of the core benefit package. Instead, we support deregulation of the insurance market as well as of the practice of medicine.
.

3. Psychiatry differs from other medical specialties

It is very important for Congress to recognize that psychiatry differs in fundamental ways from what might be called somatic medicine. At this time in our history and science, psychiatry is based on subjective reporting and observation of inner experiences or behavior and lacks objectively verifiable tests such as blood tests, imaging studies, and biopsies. While patients do experience real spiritual/emotional/mental/moral problems and exhibit maladaptive behaviors, manifestations that are considered a “mental illness” cannot be defined as a disease in the absence of objective, reproducible somatic abnormalities.
.
A mental-health parity mandate will turn the current diagnostic standards for psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), into a standard for payment as well. The DSM-IV remains consensus driven, unsupported by clear empirical data. Neither taxpayer-supported nor private insurers should be forced to cover conditions diagnosable only by consensus of by self-interested psychiatrists and their partners in the pharmaceutical industry. If insurance subscribers or clients believe mental health coverage or service to be of value, and are thus willing to pay for it, this will be offered in the free market on a contractual basis. All insurance subscribers should not be forced to pay for services that they do not consider to be of value.
.
The concept of “biopsychiatry,” or more popularly “chemical imbalance” is at present merely a theory. Based on this theory, billions of dollars are spent by both public and private entities specifically for psychoactive drugs. Careful post-marketing surveillance of the benefits and harms of such drugs is greatly needed and seriously lacking. Some reports suggest that drugs often cause more problems than they ameliorate, and may induce objective ailments, such as diabetes, which then must be treated. As drugs either first or second line treatment protocol for most so-called “mental illnesses,” a mental health treatment mandate can be anticipated to result in increased drug usage, with its attendant problems, and hence an increase in expenditures for both psychiatric and medical treatment.
.
Conclusion:
.
Whether through genuine good intentions, or responsiveness to the demands of special interest groups, the Federal government should not regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to access medical care, to privately contract with insurance companies for the goods and services they agree to, and to utilize treatments based on their own needs. Nor should the federal government force people to use or pay for services they do not perceive to be of value. The distinction between objective measurement and subjective reporting, and between empirical data and consensus-driven diagnostic tools, must be recognized. Mental health parity should be opposed on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, ethical medicine, and good science.

Thank you.

PIGS-R-US

“Always remember, a cat looks down on man (us),
a dog looks up to man (us),
but a pig will look man (us) right in the eye and see his (its) equal”.
Winston Churchill (parentheses mine)

In other words, our dominant culture is hog-rule!

OR

Pigs-R-Us

GOP Rep. : There Are 'Too Many Mosques In This Country'
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18421.htm

*

Wheelchair-Bound Woman Dies After Being Shocked
With Taser 10 Times
http://www.local6.com/news/14147512/detail.html

*

University of Florida Police Taser Student During Kerry Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaiWCS10C5s&NR=1

*

Domestic Abuse Up Close: Man Beats Wife, Forces Their Son to Film It
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/63157/

*

Handcuffed Woman Tasered Repeatedly by Police
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/14158994/index.html?source=CNN

*

WOMAN was locked up and “lost” for 70 years
after being wrongly accused of stealing 13p.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007440880,00.html
Note: Incarceration into a Psychiatric Institution (no exit date)
by-passes criminal prosecution (disappears people)
*

School Security Guards Beat Teen (Broke Wrist) over Cake Spill – Then Charged Mom for Complaining to School Administration
http://www.myfoxla.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=81401CAEF2EC7F5196628A8E31DC23D3?contentId=4473580&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1&sflg=1%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

*
Prison Planet.com COPWATCH
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/210907_b_brutality.htm

*

Medicare--Publicly-funded & Publicly-delivered--For Now!

*Profit is Not the Cure
.

Canadian peoples continue to state their political will for Medicare--a publicly-funded and publicly-delivered system. Social enterprises must be not-for-profit, otherwise the people receiving service become the “fodder for profit”. Intuitively the Canadian peoples’ life experienced wisdom tells us that healthcare, most especially, must not be allowed to make of us – a raw resource for profit.

I do appreciate that as an earnest, hard-working, intelligent, responsible young man with a very difficult, highly complex and stressful job to do that you (Prime Minister Harper) would naturally seek out professionals who are experts in their field to advise you in your decision-making. So I would like to suggest to you how to go about deciding on who best to listen to and to what degree.

1. The most important thing is to have anyone advising you to reveal all their financial associations. This is a critical step!
2. Have faith! There are exceptionally qualified, medical researchers who have never accepted remuneration from PhRMA (pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers). They are abundant in the “alternative” healthcare industry, which is admirably resistant to PhRMA incentives, while fighting to continue to provide valid, healthcare options to their consumers of service.
3. The established medical industry is a for-profit industry founded on expensive drugs and surgery. There will always be a place for this format for medicine. But, objective science suggests that its appropriate niche is actually quite small due to its propensity; accept in exceptional circumstances, to create more disease than it cures.
4. The CMA is only one medical organisation. The American experience should alert us to the fact that professional arrogance can falsely lead established peer groups into accepting financial gifts from corporate--with a view that this could never demean their integrity. I suggest the professional experience of Dr. Loren Mosher (now deceased) is an excellent example of the pitfalls inherent in professional hubris. http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Mosher.htm
5. The “best practices” regime founded on balanced and evidence-based research by established (corporate) medicine is invariably and readily discernible as PhRMA-paid research. Rewards for submissive compliance to PhRMA demands has already permeated every medical sector--beginning with education. In consequence, verification of all supporting research is absolutely necessary to avoid the direct-to-legislator advertisement.

There really oughta be a law against it! For example: The 1994 edition of the psychiatry profession’s single most influential guideline, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, was recently found to have been written by a panel of experts among whom 56% had at least one financial relationship with a pharmaceutical manufacturer. For experts writing guidelines for severe mental illness such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia — diagnoses that have been broadened significantly in recent years — 100% had ties to drug-makers, according to the study, which was published in Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics. MELISSA HEALY (journalist), “From Funding to Findings,” Los Angeles Times,6 August 2007.

Prime Minister Harper, I urge you to enforce the Canada Health Act and to investigate public solutions to strengthen Medicare with holistic healthcare options to PhRMA.

*

All About "Jelly Beans", Eh!

**

SPP Montebello meeting’s “jelly beans” directly equates to a N. American (signed in secret) Plan for Avian/Pandemic Influenza --

See SPP.gov website: Fact Sheet & Full Document

Integration is happening and it is an elite owners (private bankers via corporate CEOs), globalist agenda to rob representational governance from the people. Our already compromised sovereignty, itself a High Treason conspiracy, combines with health fear-mongering in a classic terror tactic used by mafia-style protection rackets to push the globalist agenda.

We are now under UN Regulatory Control during any medical emergency with Avian Flu being the scam to initiate the procedure.

Note:

• A recent historical reference - Avian Flu has killed up to 150 people world-wide over the last 4 years!
• A late 20^th C historical reference: Swine Flu & President Ford – one man died from swine flu, 220 million peoples were inoculated, thousands died from (highly-profitable) vaccine and swine flu never materialised.

The SPP plan that emerged from Montebello includes US-NORTHCOM, a continental military command in domestic emergency situations and which already controls Canada’s military (2002), will function under UN command in the eventuality of an Avian Flu epidemic.

Would you put it past globalists to use health emergency terrorism to obtain total control-over?

The SPP Montebello plan dove-tails with:

• Robert Pastor (CFR) last year saying that – “out of terrorism, out of crisis, out of economic collapse – we will have our NAU” (North American Union).
• David Nabarro’s speeches (investigated by Jerome Corsi, author The Late Great USA (with 30 pages of footnotes to government websites), investigative journalist for World Net Daily) quotes Cheney as stating, “Race specific bio-weapons are useful”.

*

RE: Human Trafficking: The case of Mr. John Graham’s Imminent Extradition

*

Letter of Inquiry on Behalf of --
John Graham Defense Committee

WHY? – at a time when the Liberal/Conservative Party has condemned the Canadian Peoples to Fascist Regime whim and are presently processing our Fortress America Imprisonment that our Canadian Justice deems it necessary to extradite Mr. John Graham to a kangaroo's court based on nothing more than an (unfounded as in flimsy and trumped-up) FBI request?

August 20-21 Montebello: Mr. Harper, it is no “jelly-bean” farce to legislatively seek to nullify over 300 regulatory standards created to safeguard the peoples’ life energy (sacrosanct), in order to reduce “trade irritants” and thereby emulate massive exploitation at a level known to be the worst in the technologically-advanced world. To speak mockery of NAFTA Super Highway (TTC HB3588 2003 Texas & Imminent Domain HB 2006 Texas and 5^th Amendment Takings Clause Kelo vs. City of New London 2005, Texas) as an “interplanetary transport” is super highway robbery of Canadian peoples’ intelligence. This daisy chain of dozens of corridors and coordinated projects will not only radically reconfigure the physical landscape of the United States, but irrevocably denigrate both the American and Canadian political, economic and social infrastructures, in a de facto merger of Immigration and Customs enforcement and the obliteration of the current national borders within the planned North American Union (persistently advocated by one of the main architects of the SPP plan, Professor Robert Pastor of American University and the Council on Foreign Relations). It is a nonsensical travesty, Duh! Mr. Harper, to support Canadians’ “Sovereignty over The Northwest Passage” by “new military spending”, when the Canadian military was subsumed under USNORTHCOM at a time of US Martial Law (2002), which gifts control-over Canada's territorial waters to the US.

Former Defence Minister, Gordon O’Connor has stated that we are “fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in ‘retribution’ for the 9/11 attacks” (Ottawa Citizen – Jan 21, 2007). Canada has not investigated whether there is actually any evidence linking Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban to the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the case of Mr. Leonard Peltier over three decades ago and now the imminent extradition of Mr. John Graham, the Canadians’ Governing Representatives accepted an accusation by the United States --at face value. Usama Bin Laden has NOT been indicted or charged by the FBI in association with the attacks of September 11, 2001. In response to independent news media request for information, Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI stated that, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/1l”, which explains all those missed opportunities in his capture.

On behalf of the Canadian peoples, our elected representatives should have launched an official judiciary investigation into 9/11 before unofficially declaring war against Afghanistan and to enflame offence to injury, extending our “combat role” in Afghanistan until 2009. Similarly, an official judicial investigation by Canadian justice authorities into the case of Mr. John Graham’s F.B.I. alleged criminal behaviour should be conducted prior to any legal threat of his extradition to the U.S.

Instead our elected representatives joined with their US counterparts to wage a war of aggression in Afghanistan, to secure profits for corporate from a proposed oil pipeline, shipping oil north/south through Afghanistan and then to eastern Canada and the US, while continuing to ship Canadian oil/gas north/south, rather than from west/east before shipping south (NAFTA), and with no plans to construct west/east pipelines in Canada (SPP-in process), while planning to construct 5 more north/south pipelines (SPP-done deal). And all the while eastern Canadians are forced to import almost half our energy from OPEC countries, including Iraq. I expect these steps are pursuant to the North American Union Energy Assimilation (NAU-EA!) plan of the CEO-directed SPP, co-requisite to collaboration with US Militarism fuelling annexation of the N. American continent into a single U.S. border perimeter (thereby enabling a psychotic, globalist, full-spectrum domination hallucination or New World Order resourcing a New American Century of global colonialism “Fortress America”, which will no doubt make the first centuries of genocide look like a Walt Disney caricature of “cowboys and Indians”).

TELL ME: How does Mr. John Graham’s imminent extradition to a US President who has Supreme Dictator powers to declare a bogus emergency situation or “other”--fit in to “jellybeans” (300 regulatory standards) and “interplanetary transport” (NAFTA Super Highway) and “Canada’s Sovereignty” (USNORTHCOM Continental Command, Combat Role in Afghanistan and Canada’s Territorial Waters) and the “US Most Wanted Terrorist” (un-indicted, un-charged and clearly never wanted for False Flag 9-11)?

*

Council of Canadians 5 REASONS - OPPOSE SPP AGENDA

*

Council of Canadians - 5 Reasons to Oppose

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Agenda

Edited by Maude Barlow et al.

Excerpted

The Security and Prosperity Partnership is such a big agreement, with so many policy recommendations in so many areas, that it sometimes feels like we need a ten-page essay to fully explain why it is such a rotten deal for Canada. But it isn’t really all that complicated. The Council of Canadians opposes the SPP for five main reasons related to its impact on democracy, water, energy, military and foreign policy, and the real security of citizens across the continent.

(1) The SPP is anti-democratic

The SPP is the political manifestation of a corporate plan for economic and security integration that was never voted on in any country. Big business lobbies like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) drafted almost all of the SPP’s 300 initiatives and they continue to be the only Canadian group with any input into the SPP. In May 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper put 10 members of the CCCE onto a permanent high-level advisory board called the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). This group has been asked to “prioritize the priorities” in the SPP and to “drive change.” Meanwhile, the public and most of our publicly elected officials have been left out of the picture completely.

(2) The SPP is a waste of energy

Energy is arguably the sticky goo holding the SPP together. Canada and Mexico have agreed to give U.S. oil companies an even tighter grip of both countries’ resources in return for vague assurances that the U.S. won’t shut the border to our goods. In Canada, that means guaranteeing a fivefold increase in tar sands production, no matter what the consequences for the environment and public health – and even if it makes greenhouse gas reductions impossible. Pipelines are under construction to ship raw bitumen out of Alberta and to U.S. refineries, which means we’re not even securing any jobs out of this energy fire sale. In Mexico, while their oil and gas industry is miraculously still state-owned, the corporate lobby behind the SPP is pushing for privatization. Clearly, this “partnership” is about U.S. energy security at the expense of Canadian and Mexican jobs and the environment, and is therefore an incredible waste of energy for Canada.

(3) The SPP will lead to bulk water exports

An SPP roundtable on the “Future of the North American Environment” on April 27, 2007 in Calgary discussed “water consumption, water transfers and artificial diversions of bulk water,” with the aim of achieving “joint optimum utilization of the available [North American] water.” The meeting was part of the White House-funded North American Future 2025 Project that has Canadian government backing as a venue “to help guide the ongoing Security and Prosperity Partnership,” according to a CanWest news article. “It's no secret that the U.S. is going to need water,” project leader Armand Peschard-Sverdrup told the Ottawa Citizen. “It's no secret that Canada is going to have an overabundance of water. At the end of the day, there may have to be arrangements.” Those “arrangements” are clearly being discussed behind closed doors and must cease immediately.

(4) The SPP makes Canadians less secure

Joint Canada-U.S. no-fly lists, exclusive airport service for “trusted travellers,” and racially based immigration policies that criminalize people from “high risk” countries. These are among a few of the extremely disturbing “security” measures contained in the SPP. The simple fact that Maher Arar is still on the U.S. no-fly list, despite exoneration and a formal apology from the RCMP and our federal government, is proof that none of these measures can make Canadians any safer. In fact, they increase the insecurity of thousands of people who may be banned from flying, unnecessarily detained, or even deported because of where they were born or with whom they associate.

(5) The SPP ties us to the U.S. “war on terror”

The SPP ties Canada even closer to a militaristic U.S. government and will inevitably erode any differences that currently exist between our two countries’ foreign and defence policies. Already we see Canada amplifying its role in Afghanistan and advertising the fact on billboards in Washington, D.C. We see a shift in stance on Middle East issues with Canada backing the U.S. position every time. And we see the big business lobby continuing to push Canada to sign on to missile defence and create a joint military command for all of North America. This is all despite public opinion polls on the Department of Foreign Affairs website showing that 83 per cent of Canadians would rather that we forge an independent foreign policy – despite the negative consequences it might have on trade with the U.S.

* It’s time to put an end to the SPP!

The Council of Canadians demands that Canada cease all talks leading toward deeper integration between Canada and the United States. At the very least, we must bring the SPP to the House of Commons for a full debate. We must also disband the North American Competitiveness Council and consult with Canadians in a meaningful and participatory way on Canada-U.S. relations. The majority of Canadians would prefer a “Sovereignty and Justice Partnership” with the United States, which protects Canada’s energy and water, preserves an independent foreign policy, and addresses real security concerns instead of the fantasies of the Bush administration.

*