Leukemia

June 17, 2003

> I have noticed that the symptoms for leukemia and agent orage are

> similar, the patients from the Fallon NV. that have been affected by

> leukemia got it from the lower level nuke waste that was dumped there

> in the early 60's. This would seem to prove the theory that leukemias

> can be gotten thru toxic environmental ways. The official

> Govt/Military line is to the contrary of course....

A friend was a " forward observer " in one of the original bomb tests out

there. He's finally been diagnosed with chronic myeloid leaukemia after

chasing his tail the past 15 years dealing with an assortment of very

strange health problems.

Don

>

June 18, 2003

> I have noticed that the symptoms for leukemia and agent orage are

> similar, the patients from the Fallon NV. that have been affected

by

> leukemia got it from the lower level nuke waste that was dumped

there

> in the early 60's. This would seem to prove the theory that

leukemias

> can be gotten thru toxic environmental ways. The official

> Govt/Military line is to the contrary of course....

Here's a book you might be interested in if you haven't already seen

it: The Day We Bombed Utah. I can't remember the author and am not

sure of the title. It's about the above ground atomic tests in the

Nevada desert years ago. Utah is next to Nevada, and no one bothered

to warn the people in Utah about the radiation that was drifting over

to their state. People in the book talk about how a dust used to

coat trees and bushes after each test. Not knowing any better, kids

would go out and shake the bushes and get the stuff all over them.

Many ended up with leukemia and other cancers.

Radiation is not the only thing that can trigger cancers. Pollution

and toxins in the environment can too. There is one type of brain

cancer which almost never develops unless the person has been exposed

to certain pollutants.

Certain viruses can act to make a person more susceptible to certain

cancers. Heredity plays a role in the development of other cancers.

Yes, the US government and other governments lie about these things

and stonewall. While the government stonewalls, more and more people

get sick and sicker and die. If the government would just admit

certain things, that would prevent a lot of pain and suffering. It

also would put the US closer to effective treatments for many

things. While the government stonewalls, needed research doesn't get

performed.

I've talked about this on here before, but it bears repeating for new

readers. Not everyone with an advanced degree is unselfishly working

for the betterment of mankind or even following scientific

methodology. There are some " scientists " and " researchers "

prostituting their advanced degrees and positions. Pay them, and

they will produce a " report " complete with scientific jargon that

will say anything one wants the " study " to say.

One individual which is particularly bad in this regard is a British

psychiatrist by the name of Wessely. He works out of Kings College.

Wessely has an international reputation for incredibly

sloppy " research " , playing fast and loose with scientific

methodology, and producing reports that say whatever the person

paying him wants them to say.

Wessely has done a lot of bogus studies concerning CFS (Chronic

Fatigue Syndrome). According to Wessely - who ignores physical

findings except when it suits his purposes - CFS is psychological.

Governments don't want to pay the disability on CFS, and neither do

insurance companies whose policies have a clause that if a condition

is psychological, the company only has to pay for 2 years. Hence,

the hiring of someone like Wessely to " prove " it's all in their minds.

Wessely shows up anytime there is something governments and

industries want covered up. He also was given a huge grant by the US

Pentagon to study Gulf War Syndrome in UK soldiers. Sure enough, he

produced the expected " It's all in their heads and stress " " report "

even though uranium is in the urine of many GWS sufferers, they are

developing cancers and having children with birth defects at higher

than usual rates, etc.

When governments and industries are trying to sucker the public with

this junk science, they also conduct media blitzes. PR packages are

sent out to major media outlets. Very, very seldom will media

outlets in the US do any independent verification. Instead, they

will go with the story and " facts " as handed to them. What the

public often sees and hears is not valid scientific reserach but

nothing more than PR and propaganda designed to shape public

perceptions.

In the past, whenever government and industry did one of these PR

blitzes on CFS, the PR package always included 3 individuals telling

about how CFS is just psychological. Simon Wessely was always cited

as one of the " experts " . These was always someone from a military

hospital cited. And the 3rd individual was a woman, Elaine Showater

(sp?) who wrote a book comparing people who have CFS, Multiple

Chemical Sensitivity, etc. to people who see little green men and

labeling them all " hysterics " . Showater is an English teacher who as

far as I have been able to discover has no training in science,

medicine, or psychology, but yet is accepted as an expert on a

medical problems. Her lack of credentials should have made various

media outlets leery to accept one of these PR packages and running it

as though it were sceince and factual.

BTW, peer review in Great Britain is worthless from what I've been

able to see. Peer review is the process by which various experts in

a field will review a paper before it is published in a scientific

journal. The other experts will evaluate the study and findings to

make sure that correct methodology was followed and the author didn't

make any wild leaps in logic. This is supposed to keep junk and

propaganda from being published as scientific fact. The system is

not working in Great Britain where junk " scietists " are reviewing

each others' studies. I've seen so much sloppy research coming out

of Britain that most of the time I won't even bother reading any

research coming from Britain.

The situation in the US is not too much better than that in Britain.

Even though peer review is still working somewhat and more often than

in Britain, there are other problems in this country.

I would like to see every health care professional receive training

in evaluating scientific studies so they can evaluate them for

themselves instead of merely relying on the word of drug companies

and others with selfish interests that a study was done properly and

no wild leaps in logic were made.

For more information on PR techniques, check out the article " The

Doors of Perception " on Dr. Mercola's website. I believe there is a

link to the article somewhere in the message base. If not, I'll post

it.

June 18, 2003

Not only this Victoria (below) but the NHS employs the Cochrane Network to

evaluate individual studies and provide their own meta-analyses. Doctors

rely heavily on this 'expert opinion' which is often just the expression of

one or another interest group - e.g. Big Pharma playing at being honest

broker in the medical - scientific community.

Bit of a laugh really because the pharmaceuticals are so deeply entrenched

in academic institutions and health care trusts by way of patronage and

'technical advice' there is no such thing as 'detached scientific

objectivity' anymore.

Having said that I'd be interested to know how the US fares better than the

UK or elsewhere. A couple of years may prove me wrong (I hope I am wrong in

this respect) but you may soon be experiencing a big clampdown in the USA

over stuff like melatonin and stevia and a host of other things the big

corporations have bulldozed off our health shop shelves.

Cheers,

Sammy.

> BTW, peer review in Great Britain is worthless from what I've been